Once foundational facts are proved, the Section 29 POCSO presumption applies despite minor testimonial discrepancies.

The appellant was prosecuted for repeated sexual assault upon a minor girl, then aged about 11 years, during December 2015, allegedly accompanied by threats to kill her younger brother.

The prosecution case was initiated on the victim’s complaint dated 14 March 2016, after the appellant allegedly returned to the family home.

The victim’s age was proved through her birth certificate, recording her date of birth as 2 December 2004.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 376(2)(i) and 506(II) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 15 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO, five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 506(II) IPC, and fines, with concurrent sentences.

The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds that the victim’s versions contained material contradictions, the grandmother’s evidence was inconsistent, the medical and forensic evidence did not corroborate the prosecution, material witnesses were not examined, and the foundational facts for invoking Section 29 of the POCSO Act had not been established.

The medical evidence showed an absent hymen but no fresh genital or perineal injuries; forensic examination detected no semen or sperm on the articles examined.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault and criminal intimidation against the minor victim.

Whether the foundational facts necessary to invoke the rebuttable presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act were established.

Whether the inconsistencies between the victim’s complaint, Section 164 CrPC statement, trial testimony, and the grandmother’s evidence created a reasonable doubt.

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR, non-examination of the victim’s mother and brother, and absence of positive forensic evidence weakened the prosecution case.

Whether the sentence of 15 years’ rigorous imprisonment required modification in light of the appellant’s custody, remission, conduct, and prospects of rehabilitation.

Whether the victim was entitled to enhanced compensation and whether directions were required to protect her identity in the trial-court records.

The Court applied Sections 3, 5, 6, 29 and 33(7) of the POCSO Act, Sections 376(2)(i), 506(II) and 42 IPC, and Sections 428 and 357A CrPC.

Under Section 29 POCSO, the prosecution must first establish foundational facts by cogent, trustworthy and reliable evidence; only thereafter does the rebuttable presumption arise against the accused.

The Court held that the credible testimony of a sexual-assault victim can independently sustain conviction without mandatory corroboration, relying on Vijay @ Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Ganesan v. State and Sua v. State of Rajasthan.

It further applied the principle that discrepancies which do not affect the identity of the offender, the nature of the sexual act, or the core prosecution case are not fatal, relying on Bharwada Bhoginbhai v. State of Gujarat and State of U.P. v. M.K.

Delay in reporting a sexual offence is to be assessed in context and is not automatically fatal where satisfactorily explained, as recognised in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh and Tulshidas Kanolkar v. State of Goa.

The Court also applied the principle that non-examination of a witness does not by itself vitiate the prosecution case where the evidence adduced is otherwise sufficient.

For sentencing, the Court relied on its power to modify sentence while affirming conviction, including the principles recognised in Sachin v. State of Maharashtra and Pradeep Kumar v. State.

The victim’s compensation was governed by Section 357A CrPC and the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017, while confidentiality was mandated by Section 33(7) POCSO.

The Court found the victim’s account consistent on the material particulars: the appellant was identified as the perpetrator, had regular access to the house through his relationship with the victim’s mother, repeatedly removed the victim’s clothes and penetrated her, and used gagging and threats to prevent disclosure.

The victim’s age and the appellant’s access to her were independently established, thereby supplying the necessary foundational facts for Section 29 POCSO.

The Court treated the discrepancies regarding the presence of the younger brother, chronology, precise location, and sequence of disclosure as variations concerning surrounding circumstances rather than contradictions affecting the core offence.

The inconsistency in the grandmother’s claim that she personally witnessed the assault was excluded as unreliable to that extent, but the Court held that it did not undermine the victim’s direct testimony.

The delay was explained by the appellant’s threats, his relationship with the victim’s mother, and the victim’s age and vulnerability.

The absence of fresh injuries and negative forensic results did not negate penetration, particularly since the medical examination occurred substantially after the alleged incidents and ejaculation was not an ingredient of the offence.

The non-examination of the mother and brother was held to deprive the prosecution only of additional corroboration, not to destroy an otherwise reliable case.

Having found the presumption under Section 29 attracted, the Court held that the appellant failed to rebut it.

However, considering the appellant’s prolonged custody, remission, satisfactory conduct and rehabilitative prospects, the Court reduced the sentence under Section 6 POCSO from 15 years to 13 years and 6 months.

The sentence under Section 6 POCSO was modified from 15 years’ rigorous imprisonment to 13 years and 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment; the sentence under Section 506(II) IPC was maintained, with all sentences to run concurrently and the benefit of set-off under Section 428 CrPC preserved.

The compensation payable to the victim was enhanced from ₹3,00,000 to ₹4,50,000 under the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017, with directions for payment of the balance within 30 days.

The Trial Court was directed to redact the victim’s name, address and identifying particulars from the records and copies supplied or inspected, in compliance with Section 33(7) POCSO.