Child victim’s credible testimony sustains POCSO conviction despite negative FSL and lack of medical corroboration.

The appellant was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, for offences under Section 376(3) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, receiving a sentence of 20 years rigorous imprisonment

On July 16, 2023, the 11-year-old victim, traveling alone by train to Bengal, met the 33-year-old appellant

The victim alleged that the appellant took her to the train’s lavatory and committed sexual assault

They were apprehended by RPF staff at Old Delhi Railway Station, leading to a Zero FIR and subsequent medical examination, where the victim refused an internal examination

In statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC, and during trial, the victim maintained that the appellant inserted his penis into her genitalia

The appellant, in his Section 313 CrPC statement, admitted to meeting and kissing the victim but denied any penetrative acts, claiming false implication

1. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant based on a child witness's testimony that was elicited through leading questions

2. Whether the absence of DNA evidence and the victim's refusal to undergo an internal medical examination create a reasonable doubt favoring acquittal

3. Whether the prosecution successfully established the victim's age and the commission of aggravated penetrative sexual assault

The court primarily applied Section 376(3) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act regarding aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child under 12 years

It relied on Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act for the competency of child witnesses and Section 142 regarding the court's discretion to permit leading questions

The court followed the principles in State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh (2025), which dictates that a child’s testimony can be the sole basis for conviction if it is consistent and free from tutoring

Furthermore, it applied Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which mandate a legal presumption of guilt once foundational facts of the offence are established by the prosecution

The Court first confirmed the victim's age as approximately 11 years and 9 months based on school records produced by the Principal (PW-3), satisfying the threshold for Section 6 of the POCSO Act

Regarding the testimony, the Court held that while leading questions were used, they were clarificatory and permitted by the trial court under Section 142 of the Evidence Act; since the victim’s account was consistent across her Section 161 and 164 statements and trial deposition, the evidentiary value remained intact

The Court dismissed the appellant’s argument regarding the lack of DNA, noting that the victim's testimony described slight penetration without ejaculation, rendering the negative FSL result for semen immaterial

The Court emphasized the significant age gap (33 vs. 11) and the appellant’s own admission of physical interaction (kissing) as factors that negated any motive for false implication

Consequently, the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act

The Court held that the sole testimony of a child victim, if credible and consistent, is sufficient for conviction regardless of the absence of corroborative scientific evidence

The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's order on sentence was affirmed