Credibility of minor victim's testimony and medical evidence of anal trauma sufficient for POCSO and Section 377 conviction.

The Appellant was accused of sexually assaulting an 8-year-old boy on 16.06.2015 after luring him to a rented house with the promise of corn.

Following an FIR by the victim's mother (PW-1) and investigation, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Sections 377 and 506 of the IPC.

The conviction was based on the testimony of the survivor (PW-3), the sister who found him (PW-2), and medical evidence showing anal injuries.

The Appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of lack of corroboration, failure to strictly prove the victim’s age, and the Trial Court’s addition of Section 377 IPC during the final judgment stage.

Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a child survivor can form the sole basis for conviction if found to be of "sterling" quality.

Whether the non-production of documentary age-proof is fatal to a POCSO conviction when the oral evidence of the age remains unchallenged in cross-examination.

Whether the Trial Court’s addition of a charge under Section 377 IPC at the stage of judgment caused prejudice to the accused.

The Court applied Section 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act regarding aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child.

It relied on Section 377 IPC regarding unnatural offences.

The procedural power to alter charges was governed by Section 216 CrPC, allowing courts to add charges anytime before judgment provided no prejudice is caused.

Regarding witness credibility, the Court applied the "sterling witness" doctrine from *Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi)*, which holds that if a witness is consistent and truthful, their testimony requires no further corroboration.

It also cited *CBI v. Karimullah Osan Khan* regarding the wide powers of the court to alter charges under Section 216 CrPC.

The Court found the survivor (PW-3) to be a "sterling witness" whose testimony was vivid, believable, and consistent with his Section 164 CrPC statement.

The Court rejected the defense's claim of lack of corroboration, noting that the sister's (PW-2) testimony—placing the survivor at the scene and describing his immediate distress—functioned as factual corroboration.

Medical evidence showing "tenderness, redness and stretch marks" in the anus further supported the ocular evidence.

Regarding age, the Court held that since PW-1 (mother) testified the boy was 8 years old and was not cross-examined on this point, the age stood proved for the purpose of POCSO.

Finally, the Court justified the addition of Section 377 IPC under Section 216 CrPC, stating that the evidence recorded during the trial clearly established carnal intercourse, and since the facts were known to the accused, no miscarriage of justice occurred.

It held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor.

The sentences (10 years for Section 6 POCSO, 10 years for Section 377 IPC, and 2 years for Section 506 IPC), to run concurrently, were sustained.

The Court ordered the Trial Court records to be returned.