Conviction for sexual assault can be established solely on the testimony of the victim if it inspires confidence, reaffirming the presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 377 and 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Appeal against conviction for sexual offences - The appellant convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act for committing sexual assault on a minor stepdaughter - The trial revealed competent testimony of the child victim, which the court found credible despite the absence of corroborative medical evidence. (Paras 1-30)

(B) Conviction based on credible testimony - The court reaffirmed that the sole testimony of the victim can sustain a conviction if it inspires confidence, as cited from case law. (Paras 10-19)

(C) Statutory presumption of guilt under POCSO Act - The burden of proof shifts to the accused once fundamental facts of guilt are established. (Paras 27-28)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was the step-father of the child victim who alleged sexual assault occurring on the night of 24-25 August 2013, witnessed by a neighbor. The victim, her brothers, and neighbors provided consistent accounts supporting the allegations.

Findings of Court:
The conviction was upheld due to the reliability of the victim's testimony and statutory presumptions stating that a lack of corroborating evidence does not negate conviction if the victim's testimony is compelling.

Issues: The primary issues included the assessment of the child victim's testimony and the legal requirements for proving sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compelling testimony of the child victim, corroborated by the statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act, suffices for conviction despite challenges regarding the absence of medical corroboration and potential inconsistencies in witness statements.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. conviction under pocso act (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. medical evidence supporting the case (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. testimonies of the minor victims (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. procedure of police investigation (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
5. credibility of victim testimony (Para 18 , 19)
6. addressing defence arguments (Para 20 , 21)
7. presumption of guilt in child sexual offences (Para 22 , 23)
8. competency of child witness established (Para 24 , 25)
9. summary of findings (Para 26)
10. order on conviction and compensation (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) read with Section 383 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant against the judgment dated 27.07.2020 and the order on sentence dated 10.09.2020 passed by the learned ASJ (West), POCSO (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 258/2013 in respect of FIR No. 353/2013 registered under Sections 377 /376 IPC & Sections 6 /9 of the POCSO Act at P.S. Punjabi Bagh, Delhi whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Further, vide order on sentence dated 10.09.2020, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years along with payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo SI for a period of 15 days.

2. The brief facts, as noted by the Trial Court, are as follows:

"The present case was registered on the complaint of prosecutrix who shall be addressed as Ms. 'X' hereinafter (name and identity of Ms. 'X' is mentioned in the judicial file but not revealed here in order to protect her identity). The facts as alleged in the charge sheet are that Ms. 'X' was 12 years old at the time of alleged incident. Accused is her step father. Her real father died around six years back and her mother married the accused. Ms. 'X' was residing with her two younger brothers, mother and accused for the last 2-3 years. On 20.08.2013, their mother went to their native place along with the accused. On 24.08.2013, accused returned to Delhi without their mother. Ms. 'X' along with her two younger brothers went to sleep at the neighbour's house. At about 12.00 mid night, accused came there and took Ms. 'X' along with her two brothers to his jhuggi. It is further stated in the charge sheet that after reaching the jhuggi, accused gave beatings to the brothers of Ms. 'X' and sent them upstairs. It is further alleged that thereafter, accused removed her clothes and his own clothes and penetrated his urinal part in the vagina of Ms. 'X'. It is stated that neighbour Rafiq has seen Ms. 'X' wearing her clothes and raised alarm. Seeing this accused tried to run away and neighbours caught hold of him. It is further stated that police came at the spot and recorded the statement of Ms. 'X'."

3. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the charges were framed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act vide order dated 25.11.2013.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined total of 17 witnesses. The complainant i.e., the minor child victim was examined as PW-7. The child victim's younger brothers were examined as PW-8 and PW-9 and the neighbour-Mohd. Rafiq was examined as PW-2. The child victim's MLC was proved by Dr. Hemlata (PW-5) and Dr. Gurdeep Singh, CMO (PW-11). The age of the child victim was proved by Smt. Kamlesh Vaid, Principal (PW-4). SI Babita, the I.O. of the case was examined as PW-14. In defence evidence, the accused had examined Sh. Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer and himself as DW-1.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned APP for the State and have gone through the Trial Court record.

MLC

6. The MLC of the child victim (Ex.PW5/A) was recorded on 26.08.2013 at about 4:00 a.m. After the initial examination, the child victim was referred to Gynaecology, SR. The MLC has been proved by Dr. Gurdeep Singh, who conducted the initial examination and Dr. Hemlata