Material contradictions and retraction rendered the victim’s uncorroborated testimony insufficient to sustain a POCSO conviction.

The prosecution alleged that on 2 February 2017, the appellant sexually assaulted the victim, who was a child, after taking her to a garden.

The Sessions Court convicted him under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000.

The appellant challenged the conviction under Section 374(2) CrPC, disputing the credibility of the victim’s evidence and relying on inconsistencies and the medical evidence.

The High Court’s assessment focused principally on the victim’s evidence, the absence of two witnesses said to have been informed of the incident, and the medical findings.

Whether the victim’s testimony, considered alongside her subsequent denial of the allegation and the inconsistencies in her accounts, proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the medical evidence and the other evidence on record sufficiently corroborated the prosecution case to sustain the conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.

Section 3 of the POCSO Act defines penetrative sexual assault, and Section 4 prescribes its punishment; the appellant’s conviction was under these provisions.

Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act provide statutory presumptions once the prosecution establishes the requisite foundational facts; the trial court relied on those presumptions, but the High Court assessed whether the prosecution evidence was sufficiently reliable to sustain the conviction.

The governing standard applied was proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court considered the victim’s initial account but found that, when recalled for cross-examination, she said that she had been at home on the day in question and had complained because the appellant assaulted her in a quarrel; she also confirmed that her original complaint was false.

Her accounts differed concerning the presence of the other accused, and the brother’s friend whom she said she had informed, as well as her brother, were not examined.

The evidence also indicated prior enmity between the families and a wordy altercation on the relevant date.

The medical examinations disclosed no external or genital injuries, and no semen was detected in the vaginal smear.

In light of these circumstances, the Court held that reliance on the victim’s testimony alone would be unsafe and that the prosecution had not proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

It ordered that any fine paid be refunded and that any bail bond executed by the appellant stand cancelled.