Sikkim High Court directs legal-aid body to train and monitor defence counsel and ensure rehabilitation support for child sexual-assault victims

The appellant, the victim’s uncle, was convicted under Sections 5(m) and 5(n), punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”), and sentenced to twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.

On 21 July 2021, the eight-year-old victim went to the appellant’s house to meet her grandmother, but the grandmother was absent and the appellant was present.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault against the victim and had committed similar acts on two earlier occasions.

The victim’s mother noticed blood stains in the toilet and took the victim to a health centre, where a vaginal injury was detected.

After being counselled by her mother and two other witnesses, the victim disclosed the assault, following which the mother lodged a police report on 23 July 2021.

The prosecution examined ten witnesses, while the defence examined three witnesses, including the appellant.

In appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant challenged, inter alia, proof of the victim’s age, the medical evidence, the credibility of the child witness, and alleged contradictions in the mother’s statement.

Whether the victim’s age was duly proved for the purposes of the POCSO Act despite the non-examination of the person who made the original entry in the Birth Register?

Whether the testimony of the child victim, supported by the medical evidence and surrounding circumstances, was sufficient to establish penetrative sexual assault?

Whether the alleged discrepancy between the victim’s mother’s testimony and her police statement materially undermined the prosecution case?

Whether the Trial Court’s conviction and sentence warranted appellate interference?

The Court applied Sections 5(m) and 5(n), punishable under Section 6, of the POCSO Act, which criminalise aggravated penetrative sexual assault, including assault committed on a child below twelve years of age and by a person in a position of trust or authority, with the prescribed punishment under Section 6.

It also applied Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governing appeals against conviction.

The Court proceeded on the principle that the credible and reliable testimony of a child victim can, by itself, sustain a conviction, particularly when supported by medical evidence and surrounding circumstances; the absence of an eyewitness is not fatal where the offence occurs in private.

For age determination, reliable official birth records and school records may establish age even if the individual who made the original register entry is not examined.

Minor or non-material discrepancies that do not affect the core prosecution case do not justify rejection of otherwise credible evidence.

The Court accepted the official birth certificate proved by the Registrar of Births and Deaths and the school admission record proved by the Headmaster, both recording the victim’s date of birth as 31 January 2013.

Accordingly, the victim was eight years old at the time of the incident, and the non-examination of the person who made the original birth-register entry did not render the age evidence unreliable.

The victim gave a categorical account that the appellant forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina and stated that she experienced pain; she also described two prior incidents.

The Court found that cross-examination, consisting largely of denials and suggestions, did not discredit her testimony.

Her account was corroborated by the medical report showing a ruptured hymen and that previous sexual intercourse could not be ruled out, as well as by the mother’s evidence regarding the blood stains, medical examination, and the victim’s subsequent disclosure.

Given that the appellant was the victim’s uncle and the incident occurred when no one else was present, the absence of an eyewitness was not material.

The alleged discrepancy in the mother’s police statement was treated as trivial because she had not been present when the statement was recorded, had not been informed of its contents, and the discrepancy did not affect the prosecution’s core case.

The Trial Court record was directed to be remitted.

The Court further directed the Registry to forward the judgment to the Sikkim State Legal Services Authority (“SSLSA”), requiring it to obtain reports on the performance of legal-aid counsel, undertake appropriate training and sensitisation, review counsel empanelment, and develop adequate support and rehabilitation mechanisms for child victims.