Life sentence upheld for man convicted of sexually assaulting a child under 12 in Jharkhand

The prosecution alleged that on 28 April 2017 the appellant entered the home of the victim, then a child, restrained and sexually assaulted her while she was alone.

The victim’s mother found her unconscious and, after the child regained consciousness, the victim identified the appellant.

The medical examination recorded a torn hymen, vaginal bruising, mucosal tears and bleeding; the medical opinion was that there was evidence of sexual activity.

The age-determination board assessed the victim as 9–10 years old at the time of the occurrence.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 6 read with Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act and Section 450 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and fines under the POCSO Act and to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine under Section 450 IPC.

The appellant challenged the conviction, alleging contradictions, false implication arising from prior enmity, and failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

1. Whether the victim’s testimony, considered with the medical evidence and other prosecution evidence, proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the trial court’s convictions and sentences under Section 6 read with Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act and Section 450 IPC warranted interference.

Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act classifies penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years as aggravated penetrative sexual assault, punishable under Section 6.

The Court also referred to Section 4(2) of the Act concerning punishment for penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years.

Relying on Phool Singh v. State of M.P., (2022) 2 SCC 74, the Court applied the principle that a victim’s sole testimony can sustain a conviction where it is trustworthy and inspires confidence.

The convictions also included Section 450 IPC, concerning house-trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life.

The Court found the victim’s account of the assault and her identification of the appellant credible; she denied the defence suggestion that the allegation was fabricated because of prior enmity.

The mother corroborated the victim’s immediate disclosure and the circumstances in which she was found, while the medical findings supported the allegation of sexual assault.

The Court found no evidence of enmity sufficient to undermine the prosecution case and held that the victim’s testimony was trustworthy, applying Phool Singh.

Given the age determination that the victim was below twelve, the Court treated the offence as aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Sections 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

It also noted that the appellant’s application to be declared a juvenile had been rejected as not pressed.

The appeal was dismissed, and any pending interlocutory application was disposed of; the trial court record was directed to be returned.