Reliability of the child victim's testimony outweighs procedural lapses and unsubstantiated claims of prior enmity.

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for aggravated sexual assault under Section 10 of the PoCSO Act and multiple IPC sections (354, 354A, 354B, 506) involving a six-year-old victim

The prosecution alleged that on August 19, 2022, the Appellant took the victim into his residence/shop (khokha), removed her undergarments, and rubbed his private parts against hers while threatening her

The victim’s mother (PW2) discovered the incident two days later while bathing the child, who complained of pain

The Appellant contended that he was falsely implicated due to a property dispute with the victim's grandfather

The Trial Court sentenced him to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment

1. Whether the Trial Court's judgment suffered from any infirmity regarding the appreciation of evidence and the improbability of the crime scene

2. Whether the non-examination of child witnesses 'P' and 'A' and the two-day delay in filing the FIR were fatal to the prosecution's case

3. Whether the sentence of 7 years was excessive given the age of the accused and the nature of the offence

The court applied Section 9(m) of the PoCSO Act, defining aggravated sexual assault as sexual assault on a child under twelve, and Section 10 for its punishment (5 to 7 years)

It relied on Section 42 of the PoCSO Act and Section 71 of the IPC regarding the principle that an act punishable under multiple laws should not result in double jeopardy/cumulative punishment for the same act

The court cited Moidu K. v. State of Kerala regarding the effect of non-compliance with Section 232 Cr.P.C.

The court cited Ganesan v. State regarding the sufficiency of a sole victim's testimony

The Court rejected the defense that the crime was improbable in a populated area, noting the victim's consistent testimony that the assault occurred in a private room behind the shop

The Court held that the non-examination of witnesses 'P' and 'A'—nieces of the accused—was not a lacuna because a victim's credible testimony as per Ganesan v. State is sufficient for conviction

The alleged prior enmity regarding an MCD complaint was dismissed as the defense provided no documentary evidence or independent witnesses to substantiate it

The two-day delay in the FIR was deemed satisfactorily explained by the mother’s discovery of the child’s pain during bathing and the child's initial delayed disclosure due to fear

However, the High Court noted the Trial Court erred in law by not sentencing under Section 354 IPC, but since the State did not appeal this, the Court limited its scope to the PoCSO sentence

It held that while the guilt was established, a reduction in sentence from 7 years to the statutory minimum of 5 years under Section 10 of the PoCSO Act would serve the ends of justice, considering the facts and the appellant's age (62)

The conviction and sentence under Section 506 IPC were confirmed, to run concurrently with the modified 5-year sentence