Medical evidence of physical trauma and consistent ocular testimony regarding sexual assault establish guilt despite minor narrative inconsistencies.

The appellant was convicted by the F.T.S.C./Additional District & Session Judge, Dehradun, on 11.01.2022 for the sexual assault of an eight-year-old girl

On 11.01.2019, the appellant allegedly lured the victim into a room, disrobed her, and bit her vagina with his teeth, causing injury and tenderness

The victim’s father (PW2) lodged an FIR the same day

Medical Examination (Exhibit A-3) noted redness in the perineal region and tenderness on the left forearm

Forensic reports detected human semen on the appellant’s pants

The appellant claimed false implication due to a financial dispute over a loan

The trial court sentenced him to 20 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act and six months under Section 342 IPC

1. Whether the prosecution established the place of incident and the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt despite minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the victim's return home

2. Whether the medical and forensic evidence sufficiently corroborated the ocular testimony of the child victim to sustain a conviction under Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act

The Court applied Section 3 of the POCSO Act, which defines "penetrative sexual assault" to include applying the mouth to the vagina, and Section 5, which provides for aggravated penetrative sexual assault when committed against a child

It further cited Section 375 of the IPC, noting that insertion of any body part or applying the mouth to the vagina constitutes rape

The Court relied on the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which presumes the guilt of the accused once foundational facts are proven

Regarding the burden of proof, the Court cited Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, holding that while the prosecution must prove the foundational facts "beyond reasonable doubt," the accused may rebut the presumption on a "preponderance of probability"

The Court rejected the appellant’s contention regarding inconsistencies in the "place of incident," noting that the victim's description of a "room," "house," or "friend's house" was consistent with the site plan (Exhibit A-6) and the fact that the appellant stayed with a roommate

The Court emphasized that for a five-year-old victim, "meticulous precision" regarding minute details or the exact sequence of events post-incident (e.g., whether she walked home or was dropped off) is not expected

While the medical report did not find active bleeding, the Court found the presence of "redness" in the perineal region, coupled with the doctor’s (PW4) testimony ruling out infection, sufficient to corroborate the victim's claim of a bite

The Court held that the absence of semen on the victim did not weaken the case, as the victim did not claim a complete penetration or discharge on her person

The prosecution successfully established the "foundational facts," shifting the burden to the appellant, which he failed to discharge

The Court affirmed the conviction and sentencing order dated 11.01.2022. The appeal was dismissed