Child Victim's Consistent Testimony Sufficient For S.8 POCSO Conviction Despite Hostile Witness: High Court - 2025-05-11

High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction, Emphasizes Primacy of Child Victim 's Unwavering Testimony

Faridabad: In a significant ruling, the High Court, presided over by Ms. Nidhi Gupta , J., has dismissed an appeal challenging a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court underscored that the consistent and credible testimony of a child victim is sufficient to uphold a conviction, even when other witnesses, including the victim's father, turn hostile, and in the absence of major external medical injuries.

The appeal (CRM-30626-2019) was filed against the judgment and sentence dated 22.02.2019 by the Sessions Judge, Faridabad. The appellant had been convicted for offences under Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation) and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, stemming from an FIR registered in 2017. A delay of 155 days in filing the appeal was condoned by the Court.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a complaint filed by Pardeep Kumar Garg (PW-2) on 24.09.2017, alleging that the appellant, Pawan , had sexually assaulted his 12-year-old daughter. The FIR was registered under Sections 376 (rape), 506 IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The victim, born on 15.01.2005, was a 7th-grade student.

According to the initial complaint, the appellant, a co-tenant, dragged the victim to a bathroom, removed her and his own clothes, touched her private parts with his, and threatened to kill her and her family if she disclosed the incident. This was alleged to have happened thrice in a week.

The trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to:

* Section 506 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and a fine of Rs. 1,000.

* Section 8 POCSO Act: Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000.

The appellant's sentence had been suspended on 17.12.2020 after he had undergone 3 years, 5 months, and 6 days of his sentence.

Appellant's Arguments Challenging Conviction

The appellant's counsel raised several grounds for appeal:

1. False Implication: Alleged a monetary dispute with the complainant (victim's father) as the motive for false implication.

2. Lack of Medical Evidence: Argued that the Medico-Legal Report (MLR) showed no external injuries on the victim.

3. Hostile Complainant: Pointed out that the victim's father (PW-2) turned hostile during the trial and did not identify the appellant.

4. No Proof of Victim 's Age: Claimed the prosecution failed to produce a birth certificate.

5. Delay in FIR: Highlighted a six-day delay in registering the FIR.

State's Counter-Arguments

The State Counsel contested the appeal, emphasizing: 1. The seriousness of the allegations. 2. The victim's consistent statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her testimony as PW-1, which fully supported the prosecution's case. 3. The repetitive nature of the offence. 4. That the complainant's hostility only pertained to identifying the appellant, not denying the incident itself.

Court's Detailed Analysis and Reasoning

Justice Nidhi Gupta meticulously examined each argument and the evidence on record.

On Victim 's Testimony (PW-1): The Court found the victim's testimony to be the cornerstone of the prosecution's case. It noted her statements recorded by the police (Ex.PA), before the Magistrate (Ex.PB), before the Child Welfare Committee (Ex.PC), and her deposition in court (PW-1) were remarkably consistent. The judgment highlighted:

"From the above, it is crystal clear that the victim has stuck to her story and has honestly, guilelessly and consistently narrated the events as they transpired. In these facts, factor of the complainant turning hostile will not hold much weight." (Para 28)

On Hostile Complainant (PW-2): The Court observed that while PW-2 (victim's father) turned hostile regarding the appellant's identity in court, his initial complaint (Ex.PD) clearly named the appellant. The Court noted, "It is only subsequently, that the complainant for unknown reasons turned hostile. Admittedly, there was a money dispute also between the complainant and the appellant. As such, the entire evidence has to be read in context." (Para 21) The trial court's finding that PW-2 admitted all facts except the accused's identity was also referenced.

On Medical Evidence: The argument regarding no medical evidence was deemed "misplaced." The Court referred to the testimony of Dr. Pronita Ahlawat (PW-4), who opined that "the possibility of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out." Furthermore, the MLR (Ex.PF) recorded "hymen intact. Small lacerations about 1 cm present on the fourchette." The absence of extensive external injuries was not considered fatal to the prosecution's case.

On Delay in FIR: The Court found the delay of six days in FIR registration understandable.

"It has to be understood that upon having been sexually assaulted by the appellant, the 12-year-old victim child would not have been able to mentally comprehend the nature of what had been done to her... In such circumstances, it is understandable that some delay would occur... Moreover, it has also been recorded in the impugned order that the appellant had 'extended threats to kill her and her parents in case she confided the matter to anyone.' As such, minor delay in registration of FIR will not be fatal to the case." (Para 18)

On Proof of Age: The appellant's contention about lack of age proof was "rejected outright." The victim's age (12 years and 7 months at the time of the incident) was established through school records (Ex.PH/1, Ex.PH/3) and a birth certificate (Ex.PH/2), duly proven by PW-8.

On Monetary Dispute: The Court dismissed the argument that the FIR was motivated by a monetary dispute, especially given that the complainant himself had turned hostile, and in light of the victim's "unassailable and consistent testimony."

Reliance on Legal Precedents

Justice Nidhi Gupta extensively relied on Supreme Court judgments to support the decision:

* State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh (2019): Corroboration is not a prerequisite for conviction in rape cases if the victim's evidence is reliable. The solitary testimony of a prosecutrix can be sufficient.

* State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996): The evidence of a sexual assault victim should be viewed with great weight, akin to an injured witness. A father is unlikely to falsely implicate his daughter in a rape case.

* Narinder Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012): A conviction can be based solely on the prosecutrix's statement if it inspires confidence, without needing corroboration unless compelling reasons exist.

Final Decision and Implications

Concluding the analysis, the Court stated:

"After considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence of this Court and no further corroboration is required." (Para 32)

The appeal was consequently dismissed, and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court were upheld. This judgment reiterates the legal principle that in cases of child sexual assault, the clear, consistent, and trustworthy testimony of the child victim holds paramount importance and can form the sole basis for conviction, even if other elements of corroborative evidence are weak or contested.