Credible child-victim testimony, corroborated by an eyewitness, sustains conviction despite non-matching DNA evidence.

The appellant was convicted by the Special Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 3(a) read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a child on 27 April 2017.

The trial court sentenced him to 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000.

The victim and her 12-year-old brother identified the appellant; the brother claimed to have witnessed the incident.

The victim’s medical examination recorded a ruptured hymen, while the forensic report found no semen and stated that the victim’s and appellant’s DNA did not match.

The appellant challenged the conviction, relying, among other grounds, on delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of medical and forensic corroboration.

Whether the victim’s and her brother’s testimony, considered alongside the delayed FIR and medical and forensic evidence, proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the sentence of 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment warranted modification.

The Court applied Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 3(a) and 4 of the POCSO Act, under which the charged sexual assault of a child attracts criminal liability and punishment.

It reiterated that a reliable and convincing testimony of the victim can, by itself, sustain a conviction in a rape case; corroborative evidence is not indispensable.

The Court treated the forensic evidence as corroborative in nature and assessed its absence alongside the testimonial and medical evidence.

The Court found the victim’s account consistent with her brother’s evidence on the incident’s date, time, and manner, and considered neither witness shaken in cross-examination.

It accepted the father’s explanation that the FIR was delayed because he was illiterate and unaware of the process for reporting the offence.

The recorded hymenal rupture provided medical support, while the absence of semen and a matching DNA profile did not displace the consistent eyewitness testimony because the Court regarded the forensic evidence as corroborative rather than decisive.

It therefore found the prosecution had proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Given that the appellant had served more than nine years and two months, the Court considered a 10-year sentence sufficient.

The Court affirmed the conviction under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 3(a) read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, but reduced the sentence from 12 to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment, retaining the fine of ₹10,000.

The appellant was directed to serve the remaining sentence.