Grandfather’s POCSO conviction upheld for sexually assaulting granddaughter; Patna High Court rejects delay, age and false-implication pleas

The appellant, the victim’s grandfather, was prosecuted for allegedly taking his ten- or eleven-year-old granddaughter to his house on the pretext of buying sweets and subjecting her to sexual assault, including kissing her, removing her clothes and licking her genital area. The victim allegedly escaped, took shelter in a nearby house, and disclosed the incident to her parents shortly thereafter

A written complaint was submitted on 05.07.2020, resulting in registration of Mahila P.S. Case No. 35 of 2020 under provisions of the IPC and the POCSO Act

After investigation, the appellant was charged under Sections 341, 342, 354, 354(B) and 506 IPC and Sections 4, 8 and 10 POCSO Act; he pleaded not guilty and alleged false implication arising from a family land dispute

The trial court convicted him under Sections 8 and 10 POCSO Act and imposed concurrent sentences of five years’ rigorous imprisonment with a total fine of ₹50,000. The present appeal challenged the conviction and sentence.

1. Whether the testimony of the victim, read with her statement under Section 164 CrPC and the evidence concerning her conduct immediately after the incident, was sufficient to establish sexual assault by the appellant despite minor discrepancies and the absence of eyewitnesses?

2. Whether the two-day delay in lodging the FIR, in a case involving alleged sexual assault by a close family member, materially undermined the prosecution case?

3. Whether the prosecution established that the victim was a “child” under the POCSO Act, notwithstanding the absence of a formal age-determination inquiry under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015?

4. Whether the appellant’s defence of false implication due to a family partition or land dispute created a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case?

5. Whether the alleged discrepancy between the handwriting on the written complaint and the victim’s exercise book rendered the FIR and the prosecution case unreliable?

The Court applied Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: sexual assault is punishable under Section 8, while sexual assault committed in aggravated circumstances, including by a relative or a person in a position of trust, attracts Section 10. Section 34 POCSO requires the Special Court to determine whether a person is a child where that question arises

Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 governs age determination where the person’s status as a child requires inquiry

The Court relied on Raushan Kumar v. State of Bihar, concerning the limits of age determination based on medical or radiological material, and Sushil Kumar Tiwari v. Hare Ram Sah, 2025 INSC 1061, for the principle that where minority is consistently established by unrebutted oral and documentary evidence and is not challenged at trial, the protective provisions of child-protection legislation should not be defeated by insisting upon an excessively rigid age determination

The Court also applied the POCSO statutory presumptions regarding the commission of the offence and culpable mental state after foundational facts were established

The victim’s testimony, if credible and consistent on material particulars, could independently sustain conviction; corroboration was not indispensable

The Court found the victim’s testimony materially consistent with the FIR and her Section 164 CrPC statement regarding the appellant’s identity, the inducement to accompany him, the location, and the sexual assault

The evidence of PW-5, PW-7 and PW-8 corroborated her immediate post-occurrence conduct: she reached their house in a distressed and crying condition soon after escaping, notwithstanding discrepancies concerning the precise extent of her disclosure

The two-day delay was not considered fatal because the accused was the victim’s grandfather and the alleged offence occurred within a close family setting; further, the delay was not specifically put to the victim or her parents in cross-examination

On age, the Court held that the victim’s statements that she was approximately ten to eleven years old, the parents’ evidence, the trial court’s assessment, and the medical findings indicating physical immaturity established that she was below eighteen; the appellant had not disputed her age during trial or in his Section 313 statement

The old partition-related documents did not demonstrate a continuing motive for false implication, particularly since the family continued to reside together and the alleged dispute dated back several years

The handwriting objection also failed because the proposed comparison was not feasible, handwriting may change with age, and the victim’s deposition remained consistent with the written complaint and Section 164 statement

Having found the foundational facts proved, the Court held that the POCSO presumptions operated against the appellant and that he failed to rebut them

The Court rejected the challenges based on the victim’s credibility, delay in lodging the FIR, alleged land dispute, handwriting discrepancy and the absence of a formal age inquiry.

It found the trial court’s conviction and sentence legal and well-founded, dismissed the appeal, and directed transmission of the trial records and judgment to the trial court for compliance