Credible child-victim testimony can sustain a POCSO conviction without medical corroboration.

The appellant was convicted by the Special Court under the POCSO Act, Nagapattinam, for sexual assault under Section 10 read with Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000.

The prosecution case was that, on 29 July 2018, the appellant called his eight-year-old neighbour into his house and touched her private part.

The child disclosed the incident to her mother the following day, and a complaint was lodged immediately.

On appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC, the appellant challenged the conviction, relying on the child’s delayed disclosure, alleged family enmity, and the risk of tutoring.

Whether the victim’s testimony, without medical corroboration, was sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction under Section 10 read with Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act.

Whether the delay in reporting the incident and the defence allegation of prior enmity undermined the prosecution case.

Whether the sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment warranted reduction.

Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act identifies the aggravated circumstance alleged, and Section 10 prescribes the punishment for aggravated sexual assault.

A conviction may rest on the victim’s testimony alone where that testimony is of sterling quality; medical corroboration is not required where the nature of the alleged assault would not necessarily produce medical evidence.

Delay in lodging a complaint is not necessarily fatal and must be assessed in the circumstances of the case.

The Court found the victim’s account consistent from her disclosure and medical examination through her statement under Section 164 CrPC and her testimony at trial; it also found that cross-examination had not discredited her evidence.

Given the nature of the alleged touching, the absence of external injuries did not require rejection of her account.

The complaint was made the day after the incident, and the Court held that this delay was not fatal in the circumstances.

The suggested prior enmity was unsupported by evidence beyond a suggestion put to the victim’s father.

The Court therefore upheld the conviction but considered the nature of the assault, the appellant’s age, and the other circumstances sufficient to reduce the imprisonment term.

The Court directed set-off under Section 428 CrPC, adjustment of any fine already paid, and surrender within four weeks, failing which the trial Court was to take steps to secure the appellant.