Facts
The appellant was convicted by the Special Court under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting an eight-year-old girl, and was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000.
Source reference: p.1, para. 1The prosecution alleged that the appellant took the child to bushes near a football ground, where her father and others found him with her; the child was bleeding and was taken for medical treatment.
Source reference: p.2, para. 5; pp. 5–6, para. 11The child testified that the appellant took her by bicycle after promising her snacks and sexually assaulted her. Her parents and an independent witness also testified about finding her with the appellant.
Source reference: pp. 5–6, para. 11The medical examination recorded fresh, serious genital injuries, and the prosecution relied on a birth certificate to establish her age.
Source reference: pp. 4, 6–7, paras. 10–11, 15The appellant challenged the conviction, alleging contradictions, the absence of a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, failure of villagers to testify, and prior enmity.
Source reference: p.2, para. 3Issues
Whether the victim’s testimony, assessed with the other prosecution evidence, was reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction
Source reference: pp. 5–7, paras. 11, 13–16Whether the prosecution established the sexual assault and the victim’s minority beyond reasonable doubt
Source reference: pp. 4, 6–7, paras. 10–16Law Applied
The Court considered Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, under which it assessed the charged sexual offences.
Source reference: p.1, para. 1; p.3, para. 6It relied on State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh, (2025) 8 SCC 545, holding that a competent child witness’s evidence is assessed like that of any other witness, with careful scrutiny for reliability and possible tutoring; corroboration is not a legal prerequisite, though a court may seek it as a matter of caution in appropriate circumstances.
Source reference: p.6, para. 13Reasoning
The Court found the child competent to testify and her account clear, unambiguous, and reliable.
Source reference: pp. 5–6, paras. 11, 14It considered her testimony corroborated by her parents and the independent witness, as well as by the doctor’s findings of fresh and severe injuries consistent with the assault alleged.
Source reference: pp. 4–6, paras. 10–11, 15The medical evidence and birth certificate supported the finding that the victim was a minor, approximately eight years old.
Source reference: p.7, para. 15On that evidence, the Court found the prosecution had proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Source reference: p.7, para. 16Holding
The Court held that the prosecution had established the appellant’s guilt and that the Trial Court had correctly convicted him under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
It dismissed the appeal, dismissed any pending applications, and directed that the Trial Court Record be returned to the concerned court.
Source reference: p.7, paras. 16–18Acts & Sections Cited
5 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Indian Penal Code, 18601
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732
Original Court PDF
HEMANT HEMBRAMvsTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
