Sole Testimony of Minor Victim Corroborated by Medical and CCTV Evidence Sufficient for POCSO Conviction

On August 4, 2019, the appellant, Shubham Mandavi, entered the victim's house while her parents were in the fields.

CCTV footage from the father’s shop showed the appellant entering through a side door while a co-accused distracted the victim’s brother.

The victim, aged approximately 12 years and 6 months, initially remained silent due to threats but later disclosed that the appellant forcibly entered her room and committed sexual assault.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 450, 506 Part 2, and 376(3) of the IPC, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant challenged the conviction, citing lack of medical injuries, absence of sperm in the FSL report, and alleged prior family enmity.

1. Whether the prosecution established the age of the victim as being below 16 years at the time of the incident.

2. Whether the sole testimony of the victim is reliable and sufficient to sustain a conviction for sexual assault despite the absence of external medical injuries or positive FSL findings.

The Court applied Section 376(3) of the IPC (punishment for rape on a girl under 16) and relevant provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012.

It relied on the principle from *Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi* regarding the "sterling witness" whose unassailable version can form the basis of conviction.

It followed *State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekar* and *Shivasharanappa v. State of Karnataka*, establishing that the testimony of a victim or child witness, if found credible and truthful, does not require corroboration even in the absence of physical trauma.

Furthermore, *State of UP v. Sonu Kushwaha* was cited to emphasize that Courts cannot impose less than the statutory minimum sentence under the POCSO Act.

The Court determined the victim’s age was 12 years based on the school admission register (Ex.P/11-C) and parental testimony.

In analyzing the merits, the Court found the victim’s testimony consistent and detailed (a "sterling witness"), noting that her delayed disclosure was reasonably explained by the appellant’s threats.

The Court rejected the defense’s reliance on the negative FSL report and lack of external injuries, noting that medical evidence (Ex.P-10) confirmed a torn hymen and that the absence of sperm was consistent with the victim bathing before the examination.

The Court further corroborated the victim’s account through CCTV footage and neighbor testimonies (PW-6, PW-12) confirming the appellant’s presence and flight from the scene.

The High Court upheld the conviction and the 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentence passed by the Special Judge (POCSO).

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence.