Chhattisgarh High Court upholds that the unshaken and trustworthy testimony of a minor victim suffices for conviction in POCSO cases, even in absence of direct forensic corroboration. The judgment reaffirms Supreme Court precedents, clarifies admissible proof of age under the JJ Act, and is a binding authority for all subordinate courts in the state on these questions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/951/2025 of AMAN ADIL Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010169482025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH SINHA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU (Concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Child Protection; POCSO Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the sole testimony of a child victim, if found consistent, cogent, and trustworthy, is sufficient for conviction in sexual assault matters under the POCSO Act, even in absence of positive medical or forensic evidence. Minor inconsistencies expected from a child do not vitiate her testimony. The age of the victim can be established on the basis of a school admission register, oral evidence of victim/parent, and court’s observation, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court and section 94 of the JJ Act. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Substantial reliance on Supreme Court jurisprudence holding that credible sole testimony of a minor victim suffices for conviction in sexual offences; school record and oral evidence as valid proof of age under section 94 JJ Act and Jarnail Singh; absence of medical/forensic corroboration not fatal. Emphasis on protecting child victims, no scope for judicial discretion to reduce minimum sentences under POCSO once guilt is proven. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The victim was under 13 years of age at the relevant time. She was kidnapped, wrongfully confined, and sexually assaulted by the accused, who had gained the family’s trust. FIR followed counseling disclosure. Medical evidence showed hymenal tears consistent with allegations; forensic evidence was not conclusive but not necessary in light of credible victim testimony. Defence of false implication was disbelieved. The trial court’s findings and sentence were upheld. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh regarding sole testimony of minor victims in POCSO and child sexual assault cases; age determination in such cases. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and trial courts across India, on age determination and sufficiency of sole testimony of victim in POCSO cases. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that the sole, credible, unshaken testimony of a minor victim can be sufficient for conviction under POCSO, even if forensic or medical corroboration is lacking.
- Clarifies the legal framework for age determination in POCSO offences: school records (admission register/certificate), corroborated by oral evidence and court observation per section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Jarnail Singh ruling.
- Minor inconsistencies in child’s narration or between witnesses do not undermine the prosecution in sexual assault cases, especially given the psychological state of victims.
- Reaffirms that delay in FIR or lapses in investigation do not entitle the accused to acquittal if the core testimony is trustworthy and the substratum of the prosecution case remains intact.
- Negative forensic (FSL) reports, especially if there is a time gap, are not necessarily fatal in child sexual assault prosecutions if the victim’s testimony is credible.
- No judicial discretion to reduce minimum sentences once aggravated penetrative sexual assault under POCSO is proved—mandatory minimums apply.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court re-emphasized the Supreme Court’s settled position that a victim’s sole, trustworthy testimony can legally sustain a conviction in sexual offence cases without the need for corroboration, referencing Rai Sandeep @ Deenu and Shree Kant Shekar.
- On determination of age, the Court adopted the evidentiary rule in Jarnail Singh and section 94 JJ Act: school admission record/certificate is relevant and sufficient, especially when corroborated by the oral evidence of the victim and parent. Court’s own observation of the victim’s appearance can reinforce this assessment.
- The court categorically rejected defence arguments about minor discrepancies, inconsistencies, alleged delay in FIR, or investigative lapses, holding that such minor issues do not detract from a credible prosecution case in child sexual assault.
- Consistent with Nawabuddin, Alakh Alok Srivastava, and Sonu Kushwaha, the court held that the social objective and legislative intent behind POCSO mandate strictness in proof and sentence, especially in cases involving minor victims; leniency or reduction of minimum sentence is impermissible unless specifically provided by statute.
- Absence of positive FSL report was held not to undermine the prosecution case when the child victim’s testimony, medical report indicating hymenal tear, and corroborating witness testimony were all credible.
- Concludes that the prosecution had discharged its burden; defence failed to create reasonable doubt.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; conviction is based on assumptions and ignores contradictions/omissions.
- The age of the victim was not proved through reliable documents; reliance solely on the school register is misplaced.
- FIR was lodged after delay and is thus an afterthought, raising suspicion of false implication.
- The victim was recovered from company of another individual (Vidhi), but no action was taken against him, indicating bias.
- Documents were prepared at the police station without proper investigation; right to fair trial was violated.
- Defence evidence was ignored; initial complaint was allegedly against another individual, and the appellant was falsely implicated due to name similarity.
- Conviction relied only on examination-in-chief and disregarded contradictions surfaced in cross-examination.
- Prosecution failed to disprove the defence that a financial dispute (loan to the victim’s father) led to false implication.
- Punishment was grossly disproportionate and unsustainable.
Respondent (State):
- Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; the victim’s deposition was clear and consistent.
- Minor inconsistencies or discrepancies do not undermine the substratum of the case.
- Prosecution witnesses have consistently supported the prosecution version.
- Medical evidence, FIR, and Section 164 CrPC statement corroborate the prosecution’s case.
- Delay or minor lapses by authorities do not benefit the accused where core evidence is intact.
- Trial court’s judgment is well reasoned; findings do not call for interference due to seriousness of offence and circumstances.
Factual Background
The case involved the kidnapping, wrongful confinement, and repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a minor girl, aged between 11 and 12 at the time of the offence, by the appellant who had befriended and gained the confidence of the victim’s family under the pretense of being an NGO worker. FIR was eventually registered after the victim disclosed the incident during counseling at a government girls’ home. The prosecution relied on school admission records, oral testimonies, and medical evidence reporting hymenal tears consistent with the allegations.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 5(l), 5(m), and 6 of the POCSO Act: The Court interpreted these as prescribing aggravated penetrative sexual assault and its punishment, emphasizing the absence of judicial discretion to reduce minimum sentences.
- Section 363, 366, 342, and 506 IPC: Addressed charges of kidnapping, abduction, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation.
- Section 94(2), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015: School admission register or matriculation certificate is primary evidence for age determination; only in their absence can medical tests be resorted to.
- Reliance on Jarnail Singh, which affirms age determination to follow section 94 JJ Act and POCSO Rules.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru concurred entirely with the judgment and reasoning of the Chief Justice; no dissent or separate opinion.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment closely follows and affirms established Supreme Court precedent on (a) sufficiency of sole testimony of victim and (b) process of age determination in POCSO cases.