Credible prosecutrix testimony sustains POCSO conviction despite inconclusive medical evidence and medical age variance.

The victim, a girl aged approximately 12 years, was staying at her maternal grandfather’s house on 20.09.2021

Around 11:00 PM, while her grandmother was away, the appellant (a neighbor) allegedly entered her room and committed rape

The victim’s grandfather (co-accused, later acquitted) allegedly gagged her and threatened her with a knife to prevent disclosure

The victim informed her maternal aunt (PW-2) via telephone the following morning, leading to an FIR on 22.09.2021

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 376(AB) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment

The appellant challenged this on grounds of ambiguous medical evidence and discrepancies in the victim's age

1. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficiently reliable and consistent to sustain a conviction in the absence of corroborative medical evidence

2. Whether the age of the victim was correctly determined as a minor under the POCSO Act despite a medical estimation suggesting she was 15–16 years old

The court applied Section 376(AB) of the IPC regarding rape on a child under twelve years and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault

It relied on the established legal principle that the sole testimony of a prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction if it is found to be cogent and trustworthy

Regarding age determination, the court applied Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates that a birth certificate from the relevant statutory authority takes precedence over medical age estimation (ossification tests)

The court found the victim's testimony (PW-1) consistent across her police statement, her Section 164 CrPC statement, and her oral evidence during the trial

Although the Medical Officer (PW-6) could not definitively confirm rape and estimated the victim's age higher (15–16 years), the court noted that the hymen was torn

The court held that the absence of external injuries does not disprove sexual assault, particularly given the victim's tender age

Corroboration was found in the testimony of PW-3, who witnessed the victim weeping and reporting the incident immediately after the occurrence

On the issue of age, the court prioritized the official Birth Register (Exbt P-6), which established her date of birth as 16.03.2010, making her approximately 11.5 years old at the time of the incident

Finally, the appellant's own Section 313 CrPC statement admitted his presence at the scene under the influence of liquor, further weakening his defense of false implication

It held that the victim’s testimony was consistent and trustworthy, overriding the ambiguous medical opinion

It further held that the statutory birth certificate conclusively proved the victim was a minor under 12 years of age

The court upheld the judgment and order dated 26.09.2022, confirming the conviction under Section 376(AB) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, and the sentence of 20 years rigorous imprisonment

The appeal was dismissed