POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained On Victim’s Testimony If Found Inconsistent With FIR And Section 164 CrPC Statements: Calcutta High Court

"If the deposition of a victim of sexual assault inspires confidence, no corroboration is required. Only when there are certain inconsistencies or anomalies in the evidence of such a victim, the Court can seek further corroboration." Calcutta High Court, in a judgment dated 15 September 2026, set aside the conviction of an appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, ruling that a conviction cannot be sustained on the sole testimony of a minor victim when her evidence is riddled with material contradictions and fails to inspire judicial confidence.

A division bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray observed that while the law prioritizes the victim’s testimony in sexual assault cases, such testimony must satisfy the test of being "unblemished" and "sterling" to warrant conviction without corroboration.

The appellant challenged a March 2025 order of the Special (POCSO) Court, Barasat, which had convicted him under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant contended that the victim’s testimony before the trial court deviated significantly from her earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC and the contents of the FIR, particularly regarding the sequence of events and the place of occurrence. Furthermore, the defense pointed to long-standing familial animosity as a motive for false implication and highlighted the non-examination of crucial witnesses like the "Panchayat Kaku."

The primary question before the court was whether the victim’s testimony could be considered "sterling" enough to sustain a conviction under the POCSO Act despite material contradictions. The court also examined the necessity of corroborative evidence when the foundational facts of the prosecution’s case are challenged and the impact of procedural lapses in the trial, specifically the failure to certify the victim’s competency as a child witness.

Evaluating Victim Testimony

The court emphasized that while corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in sexual assault cases, the evidentiary value of a victim's testimony is directly proportional to its consistency. The bench noted that the victim's version during the trial fluctuated significantly from the FIR and her Section 164 CrPC statement. These variations were not minor but touched upon the core spectrum of the crime, including the circumstances under which the victim was taken to the place of occurrence.

"The deposition of the victim is quite different from the basic allegation made in the FIR as well as in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Be it mentioned even at the cost of repetition that although the deposition took place within 4 months of the alleged incident it is not understood as to why there was so much deviation from her previous statement."

Absence of Corroboration and Medical Evidence

The court further observed that the medical evidence was inconclusive and failed to support the prosecution’s narrative. The absence of injuries consistent with the alleged forcible pinning of the victim to the ground, coupled with the prosecution's failure to explain these lacunae, weakened the case. The court noted that because the foundational facts were not established beyond reasonable doubt, the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act could not be automatically invoked to shift the burden of proof onto the accused.

"It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the foundational facts first, and if the prosecution is able to prove such facts in accordance with law, the defence will be asked to adduce evidence to show that he is not responsible for commission of the offence."

Procedural Irregularities and Witness Competency

A critical observation made by the bench concerned the trial court's failure to record a formal certificate regarding the competency of the minor victim to depose. Although the trial judge conducted preliminary questioning, the omission to certify the child’s mental maturity and understanding before recording testimony was flagged as a serious procedural infirmity. The court also highlighted that given the admitted prior animosity and litigation between the families, the possibility of a fabricated case could not be ruled out in the absence of robust, independent corroboration.

"As this Bench has already noted that the victim’s evidence is full of anomalies and blemishes, it suffers from serious untrustworthiness and, the other evidence on record have also failed to clarify those anomalies and therefore, the prosecution evidence cannot be relied upon."

In view of the serious infirmities, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released immediately.

Date of Decision: 15 September 2026