### Presumption Under Section 29 of POCSO Sustained Despite Absence of Medical Expert Opinion on Sexual Assault

The Appellant challenged a conviction dated June 7, 2022, for sexual assault of a minor

In August 2013, the victim (born April 6, 2005) informed her mother that four days prior, a neighbor (the Appellant) lured her into his house on the pretext of giving her food and committed sexual intercourse

The prosecution relied on the victim’s testimony, an independent neighbor (PW-5) who saw the victim with the accused, and medical evidence noting redness on the victim's genitalia

The Appellant argued that the victim provided no specific date or time, medical reports showed no external injuries, and there was a history of neighborly disputes

1. Whether the absence of a specific date/time of the incident in the victim's testimony and the lack of external physical injuries are sufficient to discard the prosecution's case.

2. Whether the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act stands rebutted by the defense.

The Court applied Section 376(2)(i) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alongside Sections 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, regarding aggravated penetrative sexual assault

The Court emphasized Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which mandates a legal presumption of guilt once the prosecution proves the "core and fundamental facts" of the act

It also relied on judicial principles that minor discrepancies in a child witness's testimony do not invalidate the case if the core testimony is consistent

and that medical "opinion" is secondary to credible ocular evidence

The Court reasoned that while the child victim could not state the exact date, her description of the assault was consistent and corroborated by PW-5, an independent witness

The Court rejected the defense's claim of "false implication" due to water-sharing disputes, noting that the Appellant provided inconsistent excuses to different witnesses

Regarding medical evidence, the Court held that "redness" on the vagina served as sufficient physical corroboration of sexual assault, even in the absence of major external injuries

Because the prosecution established the victim’s minority and the occurrence of the incident, the burden shifted to the accused under Section 29 of the POCSO Act; the Court found the Appellant failed to rebut this presumption through cross-examination or independent evidence

The Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the Appellant's conviction and the 10-year minimum mandatory sentence

The request for a reduction in sentence to "period already undergone" was rejected as the law prescribes a 10-year minimum for the proved offences