POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court

“Procedural Lapses Cannot Become a Shield for Sexual Predators, Nor a Shortcut to Conviction”, Bombay High Court, speaking through Justice R. M. Joshi, delivered a detailed and nuanced judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2021 and Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 2021, arising out of horrific allegations of sexual and physical abuse of minor girls residing in an orphanage at Raigad.

In Christian Rajendran v. State of Maharashtra, the Court was called upon to examine the scope of victim testimony under the POCSO Act, the mandatory presumption under Section 29, and the impact of alleged procedural irregularities during investigation.

While the Court confirmed the conviction of Accused No.1 for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, it acquitted Accused No.2 on the ground of unreliable and inconsistent evidence, and maintained the conviction of Accused No.3 for failure to report sexual offences, though reducing her sentence to the period already undergone. The ruling stands as a reminder that POCSO is stringent, but not blind, and that criminal jurisprudence still demands proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The case traces its origin to Shanti Ashram, an orphanage run by Christian Rajendran, his brother Joy Rajendran, and their family members, including Salomi Rajendran, at village Chambharli, Taluka Khalapur, District Raigad. Eleven girls and seven boys resided in the premises.

In April 2015, allegations surfaced through a school teacher that several minor girls were being sexually assaulted, physically abused, starved, and threatened. Manisha Tulpule, then associated with the Child Welfare Committee, visited the ashram and found the children frightened. Medical examinations of ten girls followed between 06 May and 13 May 2015, after which the police registered Crime No. 47 of 2015 under multiple provisions of the IPC and the POCSO Act.

The Trial Court convicted all three accused by judgment dated 03 March 2020, imposing severe sentences, including 14 years’ rigorous imprisonment on Accused No.1. Aggrieved, the accused preferred appeals before the High Court.

“Victim Can Convict on Her Sole Testimony — But Only If She Is a ‘Sterling Witness’”

A central question before the Court was whether convictions under POCSO can rest solely on victim testimony, especially when medical evidence is inconclusive and procedural lapses are alleged.

Justice Joshi reiterated settled law:

“The sole testimony of a victim, if found consistent, reliable and wholly trustworthy, can be sufficient for conviction without corroboration.”

Relying on Nirmal Prem Kumar v. State, Ganesan v. State, and Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court emphasized the concept of a ‘sterling witness’, observing:

“The statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end… under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of occurrence or persons involved.”

Applying this standard, the Court carefully segregated credible testimony from doubtful versions, refusing to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach.

Procedural Compliance Under POCSO

The defence argued that mandatory safeguards under Sections 19 and 24 of the POCSO Act were violated, including delay in FIR and medical examinations not conducted strictly as prescribed.

Rejecting the contention, the Court held:“The intent of Section 24 is to protect victims, not to benefit accused from technical lapses.”

It was categorically observed that procedural irregularities do not vitiate trial unless prejudice is shown, and that accused cannot seek acquittal merely because investigation was imperfect.

“Presumption Under Section 29 Shifts the Burden, But Does Not Dilute Proof Beyond Doubt”

Findings Against Accused No.1 — Christian Rajendran

The Court found the testimonies of PW5 and PW6 against Accused No.1 to be consistent, detailed, and corroborated. Importantly, recovery of pornographic videos from his laptop lent independent support to allegations that he showed explicit content to minor girls.

Justice Joshi recorded:“Unless it was shown to her, she would not have known that accused No.1 had such pornographic videos. This conclusively proves guilt.”

Once foundational facts were established, the Section 29 presumption applied, and the accused failed to rebut it. His conviction under Sections 376, 377 IPC and Sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act was therefore affirmed in toto.

Acquittal of Accused No.2 — Joy Rajendran

In contrast, the Court found the evidence against Accused No.2 weak, inconsistent, and uncorroborated. Victims who accused him had not disclosed such acts during medical examination, and their earlier statements contradicted courtroom testimony.

The Court cautioned:“Even under POCSO, the burden on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not dispensed with.”

Observing possible influence by elder victims and lack of medical or circumstantial corroboration, the Court set aside the conviction of Accused No.2, ordering his immediate release.

“Silence in the Face of Disclosure Is a Crime Under POCSO”

Conviction of Accused No.3 — Salomi Rajendran

Accused No.3 was not charged with committing sexual assault but with failing to report offences, despite being informed by victims.

Upholding her conviction under Section 19 read with Section 21 POCSO, the Court observed: “Being in charge of the institution, she had a statutory obligation to report the offence. Her failure squarely attracts Section 21.”

However, considering her age, lack of criminal antecedents, and the fact that she had already undergone incarceration for over two months, the Court reduced her sentence to period already undergone.

The Bombay High Court’s judgment strikes a careful balance between child-centric statutory presumptions and fundamental criminal law principles. It reinforces that POCSO is a powerful tool for child protection, but convictions must still rest on credible, consistent and trustworthy evidence.

The ruling sends a dual message — sexual abuse of children will be dealt with sternly, but courts will not hesitate to acquit where evidence falls short, ensuring that justice remains both compassionate and constitutionally sound.

Date of Decision: 05 December 2025