Credible testimony of a child victim, corroborated by medical evidence, sustains conviction under the POCSO Act.

The appellant, the father of the minor victim, was prosecuted for offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5(n), 6, 9(m), 9(n) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”), arising from incidents alleged to have occurred on 13.04.2013 and 19.04.2013.

The victim’s mother lodged the First Information Statement on 24.04.2013, following which the police investigated the matter, medically examined the victim, recorded statements under Section 164 CrPC, and filed the final report.

The victim testified that the accused had fondled her breasts and genital area and had thereafter penetrated her vagina on a subsequent occasion.

The medical evidence recorded a torn hymen and a vagina admitting one finger, which the doctor opined was indicative of penetration.

The victim’s date of birth, 31.12.2001, was proved through the municipal birth register and school admission records.

The Special Court convicted the accused under Sections 5 read with 6 and 9 read with 10 of the POCSO Act and imposed concurrent sentences of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000 and 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000, respectively.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable under Section 5 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

2. Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant committed aggravated sexual assault punishable under Section 9 read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

3. Whether the victim’s age as a “child” under Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act was duly proved.

4. Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court required appellate interference.

The Court applied Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act concerning aggravated penetrative sexual assault and its punishment, and Sections 9 and 10 concerning aggravated sexual assault and its punishment, including aggravation where the offender is the child’s parent.

Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act defines a “child” as a person below eighteen years of age; the victim’s age may be established through reliable birth and school records.

Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act create presumptions regarding guilt and culpable mental state once the foundational facts of the charged offences are established.

The Court reiterated that the reliable and trustworthy testimony of a prosecutrix may, by itself, sustain a conviction, particularly where it is of sterling quality; medical or other corroboration is supportive but not invariably indispensable.

It referred to State of U.P. v. Krishna Master, Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, and Ganesan v. State regarding minor discrepancies, the effect of an unput defence, and reliance on the credible sole testimony of a victim.

The High Court found the victim’s testimony clear and categorical regarding both the sexual touching and the subsequent penile penetration by the appellant, her father.

Her account was materially corroborated by the medical evidence showing a torn hymen and penetration, as well as by the evidence of her mother and other witnesses concerning the surrounding circumstances.

The Court rejected the challenge to age because the municipal birth register and school records consistently established that the victim was born on 31.12.2001 and was therefore below eighteen during the incidents.

The evidence established the aggravating circumstance that the offender was the victim’s father, bringing the conduct within Sections 5/6 and 9/10 of the POCSO Act.

The Court also observed that the defence had not produced evidence capable of rebutting the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30, and found no basis to treat the prosecution witnesses as falsely implicating the accused.

Since the sentences imposed were the minimum prescribed by law, no reduction was warranted.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court—including concurrent imprisonment, fines, set-off under Section 428 CrPC, and payment of the fine as compensation—were confirmed.

The Registry was directed to forward the judgment to the Special Court for compliance and further steps.