Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-004732-004732 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 37848/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (POCSO Act) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that consistent and cogent ocular testimony of the victim’s parents—supported by signs of trauma and the child’s behaviour in court—can sustain a POCSO conviction even if medical evidence shows no external injuries. It reaffirmed the principle that medical evidence may yield to reliable ocular testimony. Recognising that the appellant had already served over four years, the Court exercised its sentencing discretion under Section 10 of the POCSO Act to reduce the maximum term by one year. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant was convicted by a Special Judge under Sections 9(m) and 10 of the POCSO Act for molesting a four-year-old girl in August 2021. The parents’ evidence described finding the appellant alone with the child, her torn clothing, and her complaints of pain. Medical examination revealed redness but no external injuries. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence; this appeal challenged both conviction and maximum term. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Follows | Established principle that ocular evidence may prevail over medical evidence in POCSO cases |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that consistent, detailed ocular testimony by the victim’s parents can sustain a POCSO conviction despite absence of external injury marks.
- Confirms that the child’s traumatised behaviour in court (fear on seeing the accused) bolsters credibility of her parents’ evidence.
- Reiterates that medical evidence “takes a backseat” when ocular evidence is cogent and reliable.
- Demonstrates the Supreme Court’s power to modify a maximum sentence under Section 10 POCSO based on period already served.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The parents (PW-2 and PW-3) gave consistent, detailed accounts of finding the appellant alone with their four-year-old daughter, torn clothing, and the child’s complaints of pain.
- Medical Officer (PW-6) found vaginal redness but no external injuries or bleeding; another doctor confirmed the appellant’s capacity for intercourse.
- The settled legal principle is that cogent ocular evidence prevails over medical evidence when the former is reliable.
- The victim’s traumatised reaction in court—fear of looking at the accused—corroborated the parents’ narrative.
- Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act define aggravated sexual assault and prescribe a 5–7-year term; the trial and High Courts rightly applied these provisions.
- Judicial discretion on sentencing allows reduction of the maximum term when the convict has already served a substantial portion.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- No eyewitness besides the mother; narration not supported by independent evidence.
- Medical report showed no external injuries or bleeding; redness could stem from clothing friction or infection.
- Deserved benefit of doubt and acquittal.
Respondent (State of Chhattisgarh):
- Conviction based on clear facts, cogent circumstances, and reliable evidence.
- Medical findings of redness and capacity to offend supported the charge.
Factual Background
The appellant, a neighbour, allegedly molested a four-year-old girl on 15 August 2021 at her home. The child’s mother discovered him sitting near her daughter with her clothing disarranged; the girl complained of pain and displayed vaginal redness on medical examination. An FIR under Sections 376, 376 AB IPC and Sections 5, 6 POCSO was registered the same day. The Special Judge convicted under Sections 9(m) and 10 POCSO, sentencing him to seven years’ RI; the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by reducing the term to six years.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 7 POCSO Act: Defines “sexual assault.”
- Section 8 POCSO Act: Punishment for sexual assault (3–5 years + fine).
- Section 9 POCSO Act: Defines “aggravated sexual assault” (including assault on a child under 12).
- Section 10 POCSO Act: Punishment for aggravated sexual assault (5–7 years + fine).
- The appellant was charged under Section 9(m) (aggravated assault on a minor) read with Section 10. No constitutional provisions were invoked.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms established rule that cogent ocular evidence can prevail over lack of medical injuries.