### Reliability of Child Victim’s Testimony Corroborated by DNA Evidence and Immediate Post-Assault Conduct Sustains Conviction under POCSO.

The appellant was convicted by the Special POCSO Court for aggravated penetrative sexual assault (Section 6, POCSO Act) and criminal intimidation (Section 506, IPC)

On July 7, 2017, the nine-year-old victim accompanied the appellant to an open gym park to retrieve her sisters.

The victim alleged the appellant sat her on his lap and inserted his finger and penis into her vagina.

She initially hid the incident due to death threats but disclosed it to her mother the following day after bloodstains were found on her underwear.

Medical examination revealed a fresh posterior breach in the hymen.

DNA analysis (FSL report) confirmed the presence of the appellant’s semen and blood on the victim's underwear.

The appellant claimed false implication due to a financial dispute with the victim's father.

1. Whether the delayed disclosure of the allegation of penile penetration and inconsistencies between the victim’s and mother's testimonies vitiate the prosecution case

2. Whether the forensic evidence was compromised by the alleged forceful collection of the appellant's samples at the police station

3. Whether the prosecution established the "foundational facts" necessary to trigger the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act

The court applied Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376/506 of the IPC regarding aggravated sexual assault and intimidation.

It relied on *Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand*, establishing that digital penetration of a child under 12 constitutes aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

Per *State of U.P. v. Krishna Master*, substantive evidence in court outweighs minor omissions in initial police statements.

Furthermore, the court applied Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which mandates a presumption of guilt once foundational facts are proven, as interpreted in *Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat*.

Regarding child witness testimony, it followed *State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh*.

The court found the victim’s testimony credible, noting that a child’s initial hesitation to disclose full details is natural when under threat.

It held that even if only digital penetration were proven, the conviction under Section 6 remains valid due to the victim's age.

The court dismissed the "prior dispute" defense as "moonshine," noting the appellant provided contradictory versions of the alleged quarrel and failed to put these suggestions to the father during cross-examination.

Critically, the court rejected the allegation of planted DNA evidence; the victim's underwear was seized and sealed on July 8, whereas the appellant was arrested and sampled on July 9, making tampering chronologically improbable.

The forensic match of the appellant's DNA on the victim's clothing provided "strong corroborative evidence".

The court held that the prosecution successfully proved the foundational facts of the assault, triggering the Section 29 POCSO presumption which the appellant failed to rebut.

The appellant's personal bond was cancelled, and he was ordered into custody to serve the remainder of his sentence.