Reliability of Child Witness Testimony Corroborated by Immediate Disclosure and Medical Evidence Overrides Minor Investigative Lapses

The Appellant was accused of committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a seven-year-old girl (PW2) on 29.11.2012 in a rented room in New Delhi.

According to PW1 (the victim’s mother), PW2 returned from a shop crying and later disclosed that a man had inserted his private part into hers.

The parents and PW2 then confronted the Appellant at his residence, where PW2 identified him before he fled.

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 376 IPC, Section 506 (Part-I) IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The Appellant challenged the conviction, citing inconsistencies in PW2’s testimony, defective investigation regarding the arrest location, and failure to conduct a preliminary competency test for the child witness.

1. Whether the testimony of the child witness (PW2) was reliable despite minor inconsistencies and the alleged lack of a preliminary competency assessment under Section 118 of the Evidence Act.

2. Whether the medical evidence (MLC), which noted a "torn hymen" and "old blood stains" but no fresh external injuries, was sufficient to corroborate the ocular testimony.

3. Whether discrepancies in the time and place of arrest or the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) vitiated the prosecution's case.

The Court primarily applied Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 IPC regarding sexual assault.

Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, asserting that every person is competent to testify unless the court finds them incapable of understanding questions due to tender years.

Ocular evidence takes primacy over medical opinion unless the medical evidence completely rules out the possibility of the ocular version, as established in Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat and Ram Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan.

Principles followed from State of U.P. v. Hari Mohan hold that defective investigation does not necessitate acquittal if the core evidence remains credible.

The Court found that PW2’s testimony was consistent on the material fact of sexual assault, and minor variations regarding the method of penetration (finger vs. penile) were natural for a child of seven years deposing after two years.

The Court rejected the challenge to PW2's competency, noting that the Trial Court had been satisfied with her rational answers and that the defense had conducted a full cross-examination without questioning her intellectual capacity.

Regarding medical evidence, the Court determined that the presence of old blood stains and a torn hymen corroborates sexual assault, and the Specialist's (PW8) admission of "possibilities" did not override the direct testimony.

The Court dismissed the identification argument, noting that PW2 had identified the Appellant immediately after the incident at his room, rendering a formal TIP unnecessary.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of conviction dated 23.08.2018 and the sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, determining that investigative lapses were not fatal.