Solitary Child Testimony Lacking "Sterling Quality" and Contradicted by Alibi Cannot Sustain POCSO Conviction

The appellant, an 80-year-old man, was convicted by the Trial Court on 10.12.2025 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment

The prosecution alleged that on 05.12.2021, the appellant lured a four-year-old victim into his house and committed obscene acts

An FIR was lodged on 10.12.2021 (a five-day delay) initially under Section 354 IPC and Section 10 POCSO Act, later escalated to Section 376-AB IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act after investigation

The appellant pleaded not guilty, asserting a defense of alibi supported by medical records showing he was undergoing eye treatment in Chitrakoot during the alleged incident

The Court applied Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376-AB of the IPC

It relied on the "sterling witness" doctrine, establishing that while a victim's solitary testimony can sustain a conviction, it must be of exceptionally high quality and consistency

P. Yuvaprakash v. State regarding variance in Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements

Nirmal Premkumar v. State regarding unreliable testimonies marked by flaws and gaps

Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat regarding forensic lapses and the insufficiency of sympathy as a substitute for proof

Yogesh Singh v. Mahaveer Singh regarding the susceptibility of child witnesses to tutoring

The Court found the five-day delay in lodging the FIR remained unsatisfactorily explained, noting inconsistencies regarding when and how the informant learned of the incident

Critically, the original FIR lacked allegations of penetration, which were only added later

The Court observed that PW-2 (the mother) gave contradictory statements regarding her presence tijekom the recording of the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, which the record proved false

Furthermore, the victim’s Section 164 statement identified the assailant as "Suraj" (the grandson) rather than the appellant, and used ambiguous terminology ("Musanna") that was never clarified to meet the legal definition of penetration

The medical evidence was neutral, showing a normal hymen and no injuries

The Court held that the Trial Court failed to evaluate the appellant's alibi; documentary evidence (Exhibit 41-Kha) placed the appellant 150km away in Chitrakoot for medical treatment at the time of the occurrence, and this evidence was not rebutted by the prosecution

The High Court set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 09.12.2025/10.12.2025. The appellant, Swamideen, was acquitted of all charges under Section 376-AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and ordered to be released forthwith