Reliable testimony of a minor victim is sufficient for conviction in aggravated sexual assault cases.

The Appellant, Shah Nawaz, was convicted by the Special POCSO Court for offences under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 354B IPC.

The case arose from an incident approximately 4–5 days prior to April 30, 2021, where the Appellant (the biological father) was found naked lying on top of his 10-year-old daughter (PW3) after removing her clothes.

PW2 (the mother) intervened and rescued the child.

The FIR was registered on April 30, 2021, following a delay attributed to a COVID-19 lockdown.

The Appellant contended that the case was falsely fabricated due to a property dispute and challenged the lack of medical corroboration and non-examination of other siblings who were present.

1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of physical injuries/medical corroboration vitiate the prosecution’s case

2. Whether the sole testimony of a minor victim is sufficient for conviction under the POCSO Act in the absence of corroboration from other witnesses or forensic evidence

3. Whether the acts committed by the Appellant squarely fall within the definition of "Aggravated Sexual Assault" under Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act

The Court relied on Section 7 of the POCSO Act, which defines sexual assault as acts with sexual intent involving physical contact without penetration.

Sections 9(m) and 9(n) which characterize assault as "aggravated" if the victim is under 12 or if the accused is a relative/parent.

The Court applied the principles from Ganesan v. State, establishing that the sole testimony of a victim, if reliable, is sufficient for conviction.

State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh to emphasize that a victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice and her testimony should not be viewed with suspicion.

The rule that the burden of proving a specific defense (e.g., property dispute) lies on the accused via "preponderance of probabilities" per Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab.

The Court found the testimony of the minor victim (PW3) to be clear, cogent, and natural, noting that minor discrepancies in the date of the incident were expected due to the passage of time.

The Court held that the delay in filing the FIR was reasonably explained by the night-time occurrence and the prevailing lockdown.

Regarding the lack of medical evidence, the Court noted that since the charge was attempted assault and involved "contact without penetration," the absence of bruises or internal injuries was irrelevant.

The Court dismissed the Appellant’s defense of a "property dispute" as a mere suggestion lacks documentary proof.

The court reasoned that in the absence of evidence of tutoring, it is highly improbable for a child to falsely implicate her own father in such a grave offense.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹25,000 was upheld.