Inconsistent victim testimony lacking corroboration could not sustain the POCSO conviction.

The appellant was charged under Section 354A(i) IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act for allegedly touching the breasts and arms of a nine-year-old girl while teaching her piano.

The Special Judge convicted him under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine

On appeal, the appellant challenged the reliability of the victim’s testimony, the inconsistencies in the family witnesses’ accounts, and the trial court’s treatment of the defence evidence

The State and the victim’s mother supported the conviction, relying principally on the victim’s testimony

Whether the victim’s testimony was sufficiently reliable to sustain the conviction without corroboration.

Whether the prosecution evidence, considered alongside the proved contradictions and defence evidence, established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In sexual-offence cases, the victim’s testimony may by itself support a conviction if it inspires confidence; if it does not, the court should seek corroboration.

Under Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), a “sterling witness” must give a truthful, consistent account that withstands cross-examination and aligns with the material evidence.

Under V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand, a contradiction in a witness’s police statement is proved by putting the omitted statement to the witness and then confronting the investigating officer, who confirms that it was not made.

The court also relied on Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar for the principle that defence witnesses are entitled to the same assessment of credibility as prosecution witnesses.

The prosecution proceeded under Section 10 of the POCSO Act; the victim’s statement was also recorded under Section 164 CrPC.

The victim’s statements before the Magistrate and the trial court were consistent on the central allegation of touching, but differed on other details, including whether the appellant shut the door and threatened her if she did not attend classes.

The accounts of how the victim disclosed the incident also conflicted with one another and with the mother’s FIR; the court further found that material omissions in the parents’ police statements had been duly proved through the investigating officer.

Applying the Rai Sandeep test, the court held that these inconsistencies prevented it from treating the victim as a sterling witness and made corroboration necessary.

It found no sufficient corroboration in the evidence of the landlord and another tenant, who said they had not observed improper conduct, and considered the appellant’s evidence and the defence witnesses on an equal footing with the prosecution evidence.

It directed that he be released forthwith unless required in another case and ordered the lower-court record returned.