POCSO | Absence of Medical Corroboration Not Fatal; Sole Testimony of Minor Victim Sufficient for Conviction: Orissa High Court

“The conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence. The conviction can be based solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the courts to insist for corroboration.” — In a seminal ruling, the Orissa High Court, comprising Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, affirmed the 10-year rigorous imprisonment of an appellant for the rape of a 9-year-old girl, holding that the lack of medical evidence regarding injuries or recent sexual intercourse cannot override the trustworthy testimony of a child victim.

The Case Matrix: A Mother’s Discovery

The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal (JCRLA No. 48 of 2019) filed by Parsuram Tandi, challenging his conviction by the Special Judge, Nuapada. The prosecution’s case was set in motion on November 2, 2017, when the victim’s mother returned home from agricultural fields to find the accused ravishing her minor daughter. Upon being confronted, the accused fled. The victim, aged 9 at the time, revealed that the accused had pulled her into the house while she was separating pebbles from rice and sexually assaulted her.

The trial court had convicted Tandi under Section 376(2)(f)(i) and Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The Medical Evidence Conundrum

The primary limb of the Appellant’s argument rested on the medical examination of the victim. The defense counsel highlighted the testimony of the examining doctor (P.W. 24), who deposed that there were “no recent clinical signs of sexual intercourse” and no injuries found on the victim’s body.

Further, the defense argued that the families had a history of quarrels regarding cattle damaging crops, suggesting false implication due to prior enmity. Citing the lack of physical evidence, the defense relied on precedents to argue that in the absence of corroboration, the conviction was unsafe.

“It is a fact that the accused had ravished me completely by making full penetration by laying me on the ground and by sleeping upon me.”

Judicial Reasoning: Ocular Testimony Trumps Medical Silence

Justice Satapathy meticulously dissected the evidentiary value of the victim’s testimony. The Court observed that while the medical report did not show signs of recent intercourse, the victim’s deposition was categorical and unwavering. Specifically, during cross-examination, the child victim explicitly stated that the accused had effected “full penetration.”

The High Court held that in cases of sexual assault, particularly involving minors, the medical evidence is merely corroborative and not substantive. If the ocular testimony of the victim inspires confidence, it alone is sufficient to base a conviction. The Court noted that the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC was consistent with the FIR and her deposition in court, leaving no room for doubt.

Adherence to Supreme Court Precedents

Reinforcing the principle that corroboration is a “rule of prudence, not of law,” the High Court relied heavily on recent Supreme Court decisions, including Birka Shiva v. State of Telangana (2025) and Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025).

The Court reiterated that a woman or girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice but a victim, and her evidence should not be viewed with suspicion. Minor discrepancies or the absence of injuries—common in cases where the victim is a child and may not offer resistance due to fear—do not negate the prosecution's case.

“Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law... Minor contradictions or small discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing the evidence of the prosecutrix.”

Dismissing the plea of prior enmity as unsubstantiated and insufficient to discard the victim's evidence, the Court found the trial court’s judgment to be legal and proper. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and the concurrent 10-year sentence under the IPC and POCSO Act.

Date of Decision: 09/01/2026