Conviction Based on Inconsistent Child Testimony Lacking Medical Corroboration Cannot be Sustained.

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on 31.01.2019 under Sections 376, 323 IPC, and 3/4 POCSO Act, receiving a life sentence

The prosecution alleged that on 09.05.2017, the 8-year-old victim was intercepted by the appellant, dragged into his house, and raped

Initially, the victim’s father (PW-2) lodged an NCR only for physical assault (Section 323 IPC), which was later upgraded to molestation (Section 354-B IPC)

The allegation of rape was introduced only during the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

The Trial Court relied primarily on the oral testimony of the child victim (PW-1) to conviction the appellant

1. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt given that the conviction rested predominantly on the sole testimony of a child witness

2. Whether the improvements in the statements of the victim and the lack of medical corroboration rendered the conviction unsustainable

The court applied Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the competency of child witnesses and Section 134, which emphasizes the quality over quantity of evidence

It relied on Panchhi and Ors. v. State of U.P. (1998), holding that child testimony requires circumspection due to susceptibility to tutoring

The court cited Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) and State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Vipin @ lalla (2025) to define a "sterling witness" as one whose version is wholly reliable and inspires absolute confidence

It further noted State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) regarding delays in FIRs for sexual offences, and the principle that if two views are possible, the view favorable to the accused must prevail

The Court found the prosecution's case severely vitiated by "glaring infirmities"

It noted that the victim's father (PW-2) confined his court testimony to the initial assault version and explicitly omitted any allegation of rape, stating he only reported what the victim told him at the time

The Court observed that while the victim accompanied her father to the police initially, the rape allegation was a "subsequent improvement" first voiced under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Analyzing the "sterling witness" requirement, the Court held that the child’s testimony failed this threshold due to progressive improvements in her story

Furthermore, medical evidence (PW-4 and PW-5) contradicted the oral testimony, showing an intact hymen and no internal/external injuries or seminal fluids, making the commission of rape highly doubtful

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt. The appellant, Kuntesh, was acquitted of all charges under Sections 323, 376 IPC, and the POCSO Act, and his immediate release was ordered