Back
Stepfather's Conviction Upheld: Rules Medical Evidence Not Determinative in POCSO Cases
has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by a stepfather convicted of on his 10-year-old stepdaughter, upholding his sentence under the .
The division bench comprising
Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira
and
Justice B. Murugesan
rejected the appellant's argument that the absence of medical evidence—such as genital injury, spermatozoa, or damaged hymen—should have led to his acquittal. The court firmly held that medical evidence is
"only supportive but not determinative"
in such cases.
Case Background
The incident occurred on , when the victim's mother had gone to work as a housemaid. The stepfather sent away the child's cousin, Subash, on an errand and then took the child to a room, undressed her, squeezed her chest, placed his penis between her thighs, and inserted his finger into her vagina. Subash returned, saw the act through a window, and alerted a neighbour, who informed the mother.
The mother lodged a complaint, and during investigation, the child revealed that the stepfather had sexually assaulted her on three prior occasions and had threatened to kill her and her mother if she disclosed the abuse. The trial court convicted him under and , sentencing him to (meaning imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life) and a fine of Rs.10,000.
Arguments Presented
Appellant's Submissions:
- Medical evidence showed no injury, no spermatozoa, and an intact hymen, making the case of unsustainable.
- The child victim (PW1) and the eyewitness (PW3, Subash) were tutored, and their testimonies were riddled with contradictions.
- The not being proved, the under should not apply.
- Relied on precedents such as
and
to argue for reversal or modification of conviction.
Respondent's Submissions:
- The child victim's testimony was credible and trustworthy, requiring no .
- The definition of under concerns only the accused's conduct, not resulting injury.
- The evidence of PW1 and PW3 was consistent and corroborated by post-occurrence witnesses.
- Once were proved, the presumption under Section 29 stood, and the accused failed to rebut it.
Legal Analysis
The court emphasized that the definition of
under
"concerns only the conduct of the accused but not the harm, be it physical or mental, caused to the child victim."
A single penetration, without injury or ejaculation, is sufficient to bring home the offence.
Citing the 's decision in
Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari v. State of Chhattishgarh
(2025), the bench noted that
"medical evidence will take a backseat"
when
is consistent and cogent. The court further held that absence of observable genital injury, spermatozoa, or damaged hymen does not automatically lead to a conclusion of absence of sexual abuse.
The child victim's testimony was found to be
"
, winning the confidence of the judicial mind."
Her version was corroborated by the eyewitness Subash, who saw the accused lying naked on the victim. The court rejected the defence of tutoring, noting that the child had denied being tutored and her statements before her mother, the doctor, and the magistrate under
were all consistent.
The court also applied the under , holding that once are proved by , the presumption that the accused committed the offence arises unless the contrary is proved. The accused's suggestion that Subash had a motive to falsely implicate him was not supported by any evidence.
Key Observations
"The and that the absence of observable genital injury or any other related injury on the body of the child victim, or the absence of spermatozoa of the accused on the dress or body of the child victim, or the absence of torn/damaged hymen of the child victim, or the absence of any other physically demonstrable effects of the crime would not lead to an automatic conclusion of absence of sexual abuse or sexual assault."
"The evidence/statement of the child victim has been , winning the confidence of the judicial mind and requiring no further ."
"Once the are proved by , the under , would rule the field."
Court's Decision
The dismissed the criminal appeal, upholding the conviction and life sentence imposed by the . The court held that the trial court was right in finding the appellant guilty of under , and . The sentences were ordered to run .
The judgment reinforces that in child sexual abuse cases, the testimony of the child victim, if found credible, will prevail over medical evidence that does not show physical injury. It also underscores the stringent nature of the , which does not require proof of injury or ejaculation for a conviction of .
