Does the Sole Testimony of a Minor Victim Suffice for Conviction under POCSO Act? Clarification of Presumptions and Evidentiary Threshold under Section 29

Gauhati High Court reiterates that the sole, credible testimony of a minor victim—supported by reliable documentary evidence of age and medical corroboration—is sufficient for conviction under Section 376 IPC read with POCSO Act. The judgment upholds existing precedent, emphasizes the statutory presumption under Section 29 of POCSO, and affirms that minimal procedural delays or minor disputes do not vitiate prosecution in sexual offences involving minors. This case serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in the relevant jurisdiction.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Reaffirms that the sole, credible testimony of a victim, properly corroborated by medical and documentary evidence, is sufficient for conviction under POCSO and IPC Section 376.
• Statutory presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act is pivotal; once foundational prosecution facts are proved, the burden shifts to the defence to rebut, and mere cross-examination or minor inconsistencies will not suffice.
• Delay in lodging FIR in sexual offences involving minors is not fatal to prosecution when reasonably explained.
• Prior minor disputes with witnesses do not undermine prosecution evidence if material aspects remain undisturbed.
• Proof of age via a contemporaneous birth certificate is robust and can be relied upon for determination of minority.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. The court recounted and evaluated the testimony of the minor victim and multiple witnesses, including close relatives who witnessed or immediately reported the incident.
2. The court found the victim’s account consistent and credible through cross-examination, and noted minor discrepancies did not affect core prosecution facts.
3. The medical report corroborated the victim’s testimony, indicating physical injury consistent with sexual assault.
4. On the question of delay in FIR, the court relied on established Supreme Court precedent, recognizing that some delay is natural due to initial intra-family deliberation.
5. The victim’s age was established by an official birth certificate issued contemporaneously with her birth; the defence failed to challenge it effectively.
6. Referencing Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the court explained that upon foundational facts being established, a presumption of guilt applies, and the defence’s failure to rebut this was fatal to the appeal.
7. The court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Phool Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 2 SCC 74, emphasizing the sufficiency of the sole credible testimony of the victim in sexual offence cases.
8. Minor prior disputes with witnesses and the alleged unnaturalness of witness conduct were addressed and found to lack sufficient weight to disrupt the prosecution narrative.
9. The judgment concluded with affirmation of both the conviction and the minimum statutory sentence awarded by the trial court.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

• Argued delay of two to three days in lodging FIR made the prosecution case doubtful.
• Contended the conduct of the victim’s uncle (witness fleeing the scene) was unnatural and undermined his testimony.
• Pointed to a prior dispute between the accused and the victim’s family, implying possible animosity and motive for false implication.
• Questioned the victim’s age and the reliability of the evidence tendered for it.

Respondent

• Asserted that slight delay in FIR was natural in such offences and had been properly explained.
• Emphasized that minor prior disputes had no bearing on the veracity of the main prosecution evidence.
• Stressed the reliability and corroborative nature of the testimony by the victim and eyewitnesses.
• Pointed out that the medical and documentary evidence fully established the victim’s age and supported the prosecution case.
• Invoked the statutory presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act and noted the defence’s failure to rebut it.

Factual Background

The case involves allegations that on 17.12.2019, the accused committed rape on a 15-year-old girl inside a nearby Anganwadi School, when she was alone at her maternal grandmother’s house. The incident was promptly reported within two days following intra-family deliberations. The investigation corroborated the statements of the victim with those of her uncle and aunt, who witnessed or promptly learned of the incident. The victim’s medical examination further supported allegations of sexual assault. The charge-sheet was filed under Section 376 of IPC read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, and conviction was secured at trial with imposition of minimum statutory sentence. The accused appealed this conviction before the High Court.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 376 IPC and Section 4/6 POCSO Act were the substantive crime provisions charged.
• Section 29 of the POCSO Act (statutory presumption of guilt against the accused upon proof of foundational facts) was a key provision interpreted and applied.
• The judgment emphasized that with credible proof of age and commission of offence as per the victim’s testimony, the presumption under Section 29 stands invoked and must be rebutted by the defence—here, this was not achieved.
• Medical evidence and documentary birth certificate were relied upon for establishment of age, with the court noting that it is for the defence to challenge such evidence effectively.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.

Procedural Innovations

No new procedural innovations, guidelines, or directions were indicated in the judgment.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court precedent (notably, Phool Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh) is affirmed and applied.