Delayed Disclosure and Lack of Medical Evidence Are Not Fatal to Conviction Based on Reliable Testimony

The appellant assailed the judgment dated 15.02.2025 and sentencing order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Trial Court convicting him under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376AB of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that between 2017 and 2018, the appellant (an acquaintance of the family) repeatedly committed penetrative sexual assault on a 10-11-year-old victim.

The acts occurred at the victim's Delhi residence with the active facilitation of her mother (co-accused ‘K’), who silenced and beat the child to ensure submission.

The victim disclosed the abuse to her grandmother (PW-2) in late 2019 after being asked to return to Delhi from her village; the FIR was subsequently lodged on 18.01.2020.

The appellant claimed false implication due to an alleged consensual relationship with the victim's mother.

1. Whether the inordinate delay in reporting the matter and lodging the FIR is fatal to the prosecution's case

2. Whether the absence of corroborative medical and forensic evidence necessitates an acquittal despite the ocular testimony of the victim child

3. Whether the prosecution successfully established the foundational facts to trigger the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act

Section 376AB of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act regarding aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child under twelve.

Statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which shift the burden of proof to the accused once foundational facts are established.

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar, holding that delay in reporting child abuse is common due to social stigma and familial trauma.

State NCT of Delhi v. Pankaj Chaudhary, affirming that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a victim if it is of "sterling quality".

The court found the victim's testimony (PW-1) consistent, cogent, and unshaken regarding the material facts of the assault.

The court reasoned that the delay in filing the FIR was adequately explained by the victim's tender age, the mother's complicity, and the paternal grandmother's (PW-2) critical illness with cancer during the relevant period.

The court dismissed the lack of medical evidence as inconsequential because the examination occurred two years after the incidents, making biological traces unlikely.

The court noted that the appellant failed to provide any evidence to rebut the statutory presumptions under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, offering only inconsistent and unsupported claims of false implication in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement.

Minor discrepancies regarding the size of the bed were dismissed as natural for a child witness.

The Court upheld the conviction and sentencing, dismissing the appeal. It confirmed the sentence of 25 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000, noting that the gravity of the offense—committed within the child's home with the mother's participation—warranted no leniency.