Substantive Evidence of Minor Victim Corroborated by Medical Opinion Sufficient for Conviction Under POCSO Act

The Appellant was convicted by the Special Judge (POCSO), West Tripura, on 31.01.2022 for offences under Section 377 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 28.08.2017, the Appellant lured the minor male victim to a water tank and committed unnatural carnal intercourse.

The Appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds that the victim was allegedly "deaf and dumb" (making his testimony unreliable) and that medical evidence suggested injuries could have been caused by non-penile objects like bamboo.

The Court applied Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code regarding unnatural offences.

Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

It observed the principle that a conviction under the POCSO Act can be sustained on the sole testimony of a minor victim if found reliable.

The Court determined that since the offence occurred in 2017, the penal provisions of Section 6 of the POCSO Act prior to the 2019 Amendment—which prescribed a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of life—were applicable.

The Court dismissed the Appellant's contention regarding the victim’s inability to communicate, noting that the defense had cross-examined the victim (P.W. 8) without raising any objection regarding him being "deaf and dumb" during trial.

P.W. 8 clearly identified the accused via photograph and detailed the assault.

Medical evidence from P.W. 9 confirmed perianal injuries and tears consistent with forceful penetration.

Although SFSL reports (P.W. 11) did not detect spermatozoa, the Court held that the physical findings of anal orifice penetration by "penis-like objects" were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 6 POCSO.

The Court distinguished the precedent State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh, finding no procedural irregularity in how the victim's statement was recorded.

The Court noted that the trial court erroneously applied post-2019 sentencing standards to a 2017 offence.

The Court reduced the sentence for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act from 20 years to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, applying the pre-amendment (2012) statutory limits because the incident occurred in 2017. The sentence under Section 377 IPC (10 years) remained concurrent; the appeal was partly allowed only to the extent of the sentence reduction.