-
by sayum
26 August 2026 1:49 PM
“There is no requirement in law that if the victim’s testimony is not corroborated by medical opinion, the same must be discarded” — Delhi High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for offences under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 363 IPC, despite the absence of medical injuries or forensic evidence.
The Court, speaking through Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, ruled that the unwavering testimony of a 9-year-old child victim, describing penile penetration and pain, was sufficient in law to convict, especially when the defence failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 29 POCSO.
“It Is Trite Law That To Establish the Offence of Rape, Penetration, No Matter How Slight, Is Sufficient”
The central finding of the Court revolved around the victim’s detailed testimony. Despite the absence of visible genital injuries or seminal traces in the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, the Court held that the statement of the prosecutrix — clear, consistent, and free of tutoring — was enough.
“The victim has, in her initial statement as well as her deposition in Court, categorically and in detail described that the appellant put his penis in her private parts, which caused her pain.”
The Court emphasized that penile penetration alone, without injuries or emission, constitutes aggravated penetrative sexual assault under POCSO.
The incident occurred on the evening of March 9, 2017, when the child victim, aged about 9, was playing with her brother. The accused, Gagandeep, a neighbor, entered their home, gagged the child, and forcibly took her to his nearby jhuggi. There, he undressed both himself and the girl and committed penetrative sexual assault.
The child’s younger brother banged on the door and eventually kicked it open. The child escaped and narrated the incident to her mother that night. However, the family, out of shame and hesitation, only informed the police the next morning, after the father returned home.
An FIR was then lodged. The accused was arrested, and charges were framed. During the trial, he denied the allegations, claiming false implication due to a quarrel between his sister and the victim’s family over garbage disposal. His sister was examined as a defence witness (DW1).
The Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to:
10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of POCSO with a ₹10,000 fine
3 years’ RI under Section 363 IPC with a ₹5,000 fine
(Sentences to run concurrently)
Delay in Lodging FIR
The appellant argued that the mother’s decision to wait overnight before informing her husband or contacting the police cast doubt on the credibility of the complaint. The Court, however, found the explanation reasonable:
“The reasons given for delay in reporting, appear plausible… shame, lack of phone balance, and absence of husband are all understandable in the circumstances.”
It noted that social stigma and fear of humiliation often delay reporting, especially in cases involving child sexual abuse.
Competency and Reliability of the Child Witness
The Court relied on the settled position in Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 5 SCC 341 and Balveer Singh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 390):
“A child witness who exhibits the demeanour of any other competent witness and whose evidence inspires confidence can be relied upon without any need for corroboration.”
The child victim’s evidence (PW1) was found to be:
Detailed in description
Consistent in her narration of the act of penetration and pain
Free of contradictions or signs of tutoring
“She categorically denied the suggestion that her mother had tutored her… She correctly identified the appellant in Court.”
Absence of Injuries and Negative FSL Report
The accused emphasized that the MLC showed no injury, and the FSL report was inconclusive. The Court, however, stressed that:
“There is no requirement in law that if the victim’s testimony is not corroborated by the medical opinion, the same has to be discarded. Corroboration is not a rule of law but a mere rule of prudence.”
Relying on Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam (1998) 8 SCC 635 and Satyapal v. State of Haryana (2009) 6 SCC 635, the Court noted:
Penetration, even without rupture of hymen or presence of semen, is legally sufficient
A negative forensic report cannot override credible ocular evidence
“The MLC records that the hymen is absent… and a later opinion notes that ‘penile penetration is a possibility’… This supports the victim’s testimony.”
Section 29 POCSO: Presumption of Guilt and Burden of Rebuttal
The Court noted that once the prosecution proves foundational facts, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 29:
“The prosecution has been able to lay the foundation of the facts and thus brought into play Section 29 of the POCSO Act… the appellant has miserably failed to rebut.”
The defence claim — that the case was fabricated due to a quarrel between the accused’s sister and the victim’s mother — was unsupported by evidence. The alleged dispute over garbage was denied by all prosecution witnesses, and no neutral witnesses were produced to support the defence.
The Court found the testimony of the child victim “natural, cogent, and free from contradiction.” It concluded that no major omission, inconsistency, or improbability existed that could discredit her account.
“This Court has thoroughly examined the records and finds no reason to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
This ruling reinforces the judiciary's consistent position that the testimony of a child victim in POCSO cases, if credible, is sufficient for conviction — even in the absence of medical injuries or DNA evidence. The Court struck a balance between legal caution and victim-centric adjudication, highlighting the importance of judicial trust in the lived experiences of child victims.
Date of Decision: September 10, 2025
