Frightened Silence of a 4-Year-Old Cannot Be Ignored: Supreme Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Despite Lack of Medical Injuries

“Even if the Victim Cannot Speak, Her Pain Can” - On 13 November 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a compelling judgment in the case of Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 4732 of 2025, where it upheld the conviction of a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) for sexually assaulting a 4-year-old girl. While confirming the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence from seven to six years of rigorous imprisonment, taking into account the time already undergone and the overall circumstances.

The Court’s reasoning in this case stands out for its deeply empathetic reading of a child’s trauma. "The shock related to the happening of the incident… made its statement in the trauma-filled behaviour of the victim," the Court said, treating the minor’s inability to testify not as a weakness in the prosecution but as further proof of her suffering.

“When the Accused Removed His Mask, the Victim Froze and Wept in Court”: Supreme Court Reads Silence as Evidence of Pain

The case originated from an incident on 15 August 2021, in a rural area of Jashpur district, Chhattisgarh. The victim's mother, Sukanti Bai (PW-3), walked in on the appellant Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari, wearing only half shorts, sitting near her 4-year-old daughter who lay partially undressed and visibly distressed. The girl later complained of pain in her private parts, and the mother noticed the area was wet. The appellant fled the scene when confronted.

A First Information Report was registered the same day, invoking Sections 376 and 376AB of the IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The girl was medically examined and her birth certificate confirmed that she was just 4 years old at the time of the offence. A charge sheet followed, and the Special POCSO Court convicted the accused under Sections 9(m) and 10 of the POCSO Act. The High Court later upheld the conviction, leading to this final appeal before the Supreme Court.

“Even Where Medical Evidence Is Inconclusive, Consistent Ocular Testimony Prevails”: Court Reiterates Position on Victim-Centric Justice

At the Supreme Court, the appellant’s counsel argued that there were no eyewitnesses to the assault, no external injuries on the victim, and no signs of bleeding. It was suggested that the redness observed could have resulted from infection or friction from clothes. The defence claimed these were grounds to acquit, insisting the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction.

The Court rejected this outright. “It is well settled that the medical evidence will take a backseat… where the ocular evidence is consistent and cogent, the latter would be allowed to prevail,” it declared. The Court noted that both parents of the victim gave a consistent and credible account of events. The mother’s testimony, in particular, was detailed and trustworthy. The Court observed, “There is no good reason not to disbelieve the details revealed and the narration given about the incident by PW-3 – mother of the victim.”

The most emotionally powerful moment came during the trial, when the 4-year-old victim was brought to court. When the accused removed his mask and was shown to the child, the judge recorded that she became frightened, did not look at him, and began crying uncontrollably. Efforts were made to calm her, but she remained inconsolable and could not depose.

“Victim was not giving any answers and is crying and even after many efforts, she is not telling anything before this Court… Her examination is closed,” recorded the Special Judge on 16 November 2021. The Supreme Court interpreted this breakdown as “a pointer in itself,” describing her behaviour as “tale-telling” of the trauma she suffered.

“Absence of Penetration Does Not Weaken the Charge of Aggravated Sexual Assault Under Section 9(m)”: Court Clarifies Scope of POCSO

The appellant also tried to argue that the act could not amount to aggravated sexual assault since there was no penetration. But the Court found no merit in this. It emphasized that under Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, “sexual assault on a child below 12 years” constitutes aggravated sexual assault, regardless of whether penetration occurs. The punishment under Section 10, which the trial court applied, is rigorous imprisonment between 5 to 7 years.

The Supreme Court concluded: “The appreciation of evidence of the trial court and consideration thereof by the High Court could be said to be eminently legal and proper, warranting no interference by this Court.” It therefore upheld the conviction.

However, noting that the appellant had already served around 4 years and 5 months in prison, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence to 6 years of rigorous imprisonment, instead of the full 7 years originally imposed.

The fine of Rs. 6,000 and the default simple imprisonment of one year were left unchanged.

“Trauma Speaks in Silence”: A Landmark Affirmation of Victim-Centric Justice in POCSO Cases

This judgment marks a vital affirmation that courts must adopt a victim-centric approach, especially in cases involving very young children. It acknowledges that the behavioural responses of traumatised children—like uncontrollable crying, silence, or fear—can be as legally significant as spoken testimony.

The ruling stands out not only for its strict adherence to law but also for its moral clarity and emotional sensitivity. “The frightened state upon seeing the accused is a pointer in itself,” the Court observed, reminding us that sometimes, what a child cannot say aloud in court may still resound loudly in the conscience of justice.

Date of Decision: 13 November 2025