Testimony of a reliable child victim outweighs internal medical evidence and partial hostility of witnesses.

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on 21.08.2025 under Section 6 read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act for the sexual assault of a seven-year-old girl.

The prosecution alleged that on 20.06.2022, the Appellant, a milkman, entered the victim's residence during her parents' absence and committed indecent acts and threats.

The defense challenged the conviction on grounds of inconsistencies in the informant's (PW-1) testimony, lack of medical injuries, and failure to prove the chain of custody for electronic evidence (a pen drive).

1. Whether the testimony of a child victim can form the sole basis of conviction under the POCSO Act despite minor inconsistencies and lack of medical corroboration.

2. Whether the partial hostility of the informant (PW-1) and alleged procedural lapses in handling electronic evidence under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act vitiate the prosecution’s case.

The Court applied Section 6 (Aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and Section 18 (Attempt) of the POCSO Act.

It relied on the established principle that in sexual offenses, the testimony of a victim of "sterling quality" is sufficient for conviction without corroboration.

It further applied Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of electronic records, noting that substantial compliance via certificate is sufficient when supported by oral testimony.

Regarding hostile witnesses, the Court applied the doctrine that partial hostility does not render the entire testimony or the prosecution case unreliable.

The Court reasoned that the 7-year-old victim’s (PW-2) testimony was consistent, attributed specific acts to the Appellant, and was not diminished by her tender age.

The Court dismissed the Appellant's focus on the informant's (PW-1) inconsistencies, noting that as PW-1 was not an eye-witness, his deviations did not affect the core case built on the victim’s testimony.

Regarding electronic evidence, the Court found that the pen drive’s contents showing the Appellant’s proximity to the victim corroborated the State's version, and the submission of a Section 65-B certificate satisfied legal requirements.

Finally, the Court held that the absence of physical medical injuries is not fatal in POCSO cases, especially when the victim’s oral evidence is credible and inspires confidence.

The Court held that its conviction was based on the fact that the victim’s testimony was reliable and the electronic evidence sufficiently corroborated the charges. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment dated 21.08.2025, sentencing the Appellant to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000, was affirmed.