Medical evidence establishing minority can sustain a POCSO conviction despite unproved school admission entries.

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar, in Special (POCSO) Case No. 65/2019 arising from Nazira P.S. Case No. 277/2019, for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”) against his stepdaughter.

The prosecution alleged that on 15 August 2019 the appellant took the victim to a field, threatened her with a dao, removed her clothing and sexually assaulted her.

The victim reported the incident to neighbours and subsequently lodged the FIR. Her testimony was supported by the evidence of neighbouring witnesses, the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and medical evidence showing a perforated hymen, irregular margins and a fresh vaginal tear with bleeding.

The Trial Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000, with six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default.

In appeal, the appellant denied the rape and contended that the victim’s age had not been legally proved for application of the POCSO Act. The prosecution relied on the school admission register, medical evidence and radiological examination to establish that the victim was below 18 years of age.

Whether the prosecution proved that the victim was below 18 years of age so as to attract the provisions of the POCSO Act?

Whether the victim’s testimony, corroborated by the statements of other witnesses and medical evidence, established that the appellant had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Sections 5(n) and 6 of the POCSO Act?

Whether the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court required modification?

The Court applied Sections 5(n) and 6 of the POCSO Act, under which penetrative sexual assault by a person in a position of trust or authority, including a guardian or stepfather, against a child below 18 years constitutes aggravated penetrative sexual assault and is punishable under Section 6.

The Court relied on the principle that the credible and consistent testimony of a victim of sexual assault can, by itself, sustain a conviction, particularly where corroborated by medical and surrounding evidence.

For contradictions, the Court applied Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, read with Section 162 Cr.P.C., holding that a prior statement cannot be used to contradict a witness unless the relevant portion is specifically put to that witness in cross-examination.

For age determination, the Court relied on Birka Shiva v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1454, holding that a school admission-register entry is not conclusive where the maker of the entry and the person who supplied the date of birth are not examined or otherwise corroborated.

The Court nevertheless accepted reliable medical and radiological evidence showing that the victim was below 18 years of age.

The Court found that the school admission-register entry could not, by itself, conclusively establish the victim’s date of birth because the person who made the entry and the guardian who supplied the information were not examined, and the victim herself stated a different date of birth.

However, the medical evidence showed Tanner stage II–III breast development, unfused epiphyses of the radius and ulna, and a radiological age below 18 years. Taken together, this evidence established that the victim was a child under the POCSO Act at the time of the occurrence.

The Court accepted the victim’s account as truthful and consistent with her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. Her evidence was corroborated by the testimony of neighbours to whom she immediately disclosed the assault, the evidence of the Village Defence Party member, and the medical findings of hymenal and vaginal injuries.

The alleged omission noted by the Investigating Officer—that the victim had not expressly stated that the appellant inserted his penis into her vagina—was not treated as a contradiction because the omission had not been put to the victim in cross-examination in accordance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act.

Since the appellant was the victim’s stepfather, the aggravated circumstance under Section 5(n) of the POCSO Act was established.

The Court therefore upheld the conviction under Section 6, but considered life imprisonment excessive and substituted it with the statutory minimum sentence of 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment.

The Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(n), finding that the victim was below 18 years of age and that her testimony was reliable and corroborated.

However, the sentence of life imprisonment was set aside and modified to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of ₹10,000 and, in default, a further six months’ rigorous imprisonment.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of, and the Trial Court Record was directed to be returned.