POCSO Act | Delay In Cross-Examination Of Prosecution Witnesses Does Not Weaken Sterling Testimony Of Victim: Madras High Court

"The testimony of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience." Madras High Court, in a significant ruling dated 09 October 2026, held that the unexplained delay in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, particularly when caused by the defense's own refusal to examine them on the scheduled date, cannot be used to discredit otherwise reliable evidence in cases involving sexual assault.

A bench of Justice G. Arul Murugan observed that when the victim's testimony is found to be of "sterling quality," the court is not legally compelled to look for further corroboration.

The appellant, a 61-year-old school correspondent, was convicted for committing aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act and wrongful confinement under Section 342 IPC. The incident occurred in November 2019 when the 10-year-old victim was attending handwriting classes at the appellant's school while her father attended an astrology class in an adjacent room. The trial court sentenced the accused to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, which was challenged before the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether the delay in cross-examining the victim and prosecution witnesses, coupled with alleged minor discrepancies in testimony, warranted an acquittal. The court was also tasked with determining whether the conviction could be sustained on the sole, consistent testimony of the victim and whether the invocation of Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act was legally sound given the victim's age.

Refusal To Cross-Examine Draws Adverse Inference

The court expressed strong disapproval of the defense's tactical delay in cross-examining the witnesses. The trial court had recorded that the defense counsel refused to cross-examine the victim and key witnesses on the day of their examination-in-chief, despite the court's insistence. The cross-examination was eventually conducted seven months later. The bench noted that such dilatory tactics by the defense, intended to frustrate the trial process, justify drawing an adverse inference against the appellant.

Court Rejects Plea Of Delay In Trial

The appellant argued that the delay in the cross-examination undermined the credibility of the witnesses. The Court held that despite the seven-month interval between the chief and cross-examination, the victim remained consistent and withstood the rigor of the questioning. The court emphasized that minor discrepancies in a victim's statement should not be used as a ground to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case, especially when the victim's testimony is found to be "clear, cogent, and trustworthy."

Court Upholds Sole Testimony Of Victim

The High Court affirmed that the evidence of a victim of sexual assault does not require corroboration in material particulars to sustain a conviction. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Ganesan v. State, the bench reiterated that the victim of a sexual offence is not an accomplice, but a victim of the crime. Therefore, her testimony must receive at least the same weight as that of an injured witness, provided it inspires the judicial conscience.

"If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars."

Statutory Presumption Under POCSO Act

The court clarified that once the age of the victim is established as being below 12 years—as confirmed by school records—the offence of aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act is clearly made out. The appellant's contention that the act only constituted sexual assault under Section 7 was rejected as "totally misplaced." Furthermore, the court held that the appellant's failure to produce CCTV footage, despite claiming its existence, triggered the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.

Finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s findings, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence. The court underscored that the position of authority held by a school correspondent carries a duty to protect students, and his violation of that trust to commit such a crime warrants no leniency, regardless of the appellant's advanced age.

Date of Decision: 09 October 2026