Credible child-victim testimony sustains a POCSO conviction despite minor inconsistencies and reporting delay.

The appellant was convicted by the Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Madurai District, for offences under Sections 5(1) read with 6 and 5(m) read with 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 506(ii) IPC. The trial court imposed life imprisonment for the POCSO offences and two years’ rigorous imprisonment for criminal intimidation.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a neighbour, sexually assaulted the victim, who was a minor, on multiple occasions and threatened her against disclosure. The victim’s mother lodged a complaint on 19 April 2022; the victim, her mother, grandmother, and tuition teacher testified at trial.

The appellant appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC, challenging the conviction and sentence on grounds including delay, inconsistencies, alleged tutoring, non-examination of other persons, and an asserted motive to falsely implicate him.

Whether the victim’s testimony, considered with the corroborative evidence, established the alleged penetrative sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt despite the asserted inconsistencies and delay in reporting

Whether the appellant rebutted the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act

Whether the conviction or sentence warranted appellate interference

The Court applied Sections 5(1) and 5(m), read with Section 6, of the POCSO Act, concerning aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and Section 29 of that Act, under which the statutory presumption applies once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts.

It also considered Section 506(ii) IPC, under which the appellant had been convicted.

The Court treated cogent testimony from a child victim as capable of sustaining the prosecution case, and held that minor inconsistencies, non-examination of other witnesses, or delay explained by fear and threats did not, in the circumstances, undermine that evidence.

The Court found the victim’s age established by the school records and the Headmistress’s evidence.

It considered the victim’s account of the assaults cogent and convincing, and found no grave inconsistency warranting interference; it also regarded the medical evidence as corroborative.

The Court rejected the arguments concerning alleged tutoring, the non-examination of two other girls, and the appellant’s household circumstances, noting that these matters did not displace the victim’s evidence.

It accepted that fear and threats explained the delay in reporting and held that the appellant had not rebutted the Section 29 presumption.

Finding no basis to set aside or modify the conviction or sentence, it confirmed the trial court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal.