Sole Testimony of Minor Victim Established as Reliable Overrides Lack of Seminal and Radiological Evidence

On February 23, 2021, the victim’s mother lodged an FIR alleging the appellant (her son-in-law) enticed and took away her 15-year-old daughter on February 12, 2021.

The victim was recovered five months later, on July 21, 2021, from the appellant’s custody in Tamil Nadu.

Investigation revealed that the appellant took the victim to a workplace, kept her under coercive control, and subjected her to repeated sexual assault.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant filed this appeal challenging the reliability of the victim’s testimony and the proof of her minority.

1. Whether the prosecution conclusively established the victim was below 18 years of age on the date of the incident.

2. Whether the testimony of the victim was reliable and of "sterling quality" to sustain a conviction.

3. Whether the acts of the appellant constituted abduction and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the IPC and POCSO Act.

Section 94(2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which prioritizes school records/date of birth certificates for age determination.

Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding entries in public records made in the performance of duty.

The Court applied principles from Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi, defining the "sterling witness" whose version is unassailable.

State of UP v. Sonu Kushwaha, mandating the imposition of minimum statutory sentences under the POCSO Act.

The Court found the victim’s minority was proved through the school admission register (Ex.P-13), showing her date of birth as July 7, 2005, making her 15 years old at the time of the offence.

The Court rejected the defense's plea of "consent," noting that under POCSO, the consent of a minor is irrelevant and, factually, the victim's testimony detailed a narrative of coercion, threats, and restricted movement in Tamil Nadu.

The Court held that the lack of fresh injuries or semen in the FSL report was not fatal, as the incident involved prolonged cohabitation and repeated assault over five months, which was supported by the medical finding of a ruptured hymen.

The evidence of the mother (P.W.-01) and sister (P.W.-03) corroborated the unlawful removal and subsequent recovery from the appellant's company.

The High Court upheld the conviction and the 20-year sentence passed by the Trial Court under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appeal was dismissed.