A Voice That Withstood Cross-Examination: Madras High Court Reinforces ‘Sterling Testimony’ Doctrine in POCSO Case

In a significant ruling from the standpoint of criminal trial advocacy, the Madras High Court reaffirmed that a conviction under the POCSO Act can rest solely on the testimony of the victim—provided it meets the threshold of credibility and consistency. Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed the appeal of a man convicted for repeatedly sexually assaulting his 14-year-old cousin, observing that “the testimony of the victim is reliable, trustworthy and of sterling quality.”

The case exposed a prolonged pattern of abuse within a prohibited familial relationship, where the accused exploited the absence of the victim’s parents and her dependence on her grandmother’s household. The Court noted that “the accused, a blood relative who ought to have been a protector, had instead taken advantage of the victim’s vulnerability,” committing repeated acts of sexual assault over more than a year.

Rejecting the defence’s attack on inconsistencies, the Court drew a clear distinction between material contradictions and peripheral discrepancies. It held that “minor inconsistencies, particularly in cases involving sexual trauma, cannot be magnified to discredit an otherwise cogent prosecution case.” The victim’s statements—from the initial complaint to her deposition—were found to be consistent on the core allegation of repeated sexual assault.

A key legal pivot in the judgment was the application of the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. Once the prosecution established that the victim was a minor and had been subjected to sexual acts, the burden shifted decisively. The Court emphasized that “in the absence of any explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or rebuttal evidence, the presumption operates with full force against the accused.”

The defence sought to rely on the victim’s initial version alleging kidnapping and gang rape. However, the Court accepted her explanation that this narrative was given under the accused’s instruction, shaped by fear and stigma surrounding incest. “Such deviation, when plausibly explained, does not corrode the substratum of the prosecution case,” the Court reasoned.

On the issue of delay, the Court adopted a pragmatic and victim-sensitive approach. It held that “delay in reporting, especially where the offender is a close relative, is a natural consequence of fear, shame and social pressure,” and cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution.

Medical evidence, which did not conclusively establish recent intercourse, was also addressed. The Court clarified that absence of injuries or definitive medical signs does not negate sexual assault, particularly when the testimony of the victim is otherwise credible. “Under POCSO, the question is not of consent but of protection,” the Court underscored.

Ultimately, the High Court found no infirmity in the trial court’s findings and affirmed the sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment. In doing so, it sent a strong signal that “where the voice of the victim is clear, consistent and credible, the law does not demand corroboration as a precondition for conviction.”

Date: 12 March 2026