The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that the absence of physical injuries in a child sexual abuse case does not invalidate the victim’s testimony, emphasizing that trauma, delay in reporting, and medical limitations do not equate to improbability. This ruling provides critical doctrinal clarity for prosecutors and defense counsel navigating evidentiary challenges under the POCSO Act.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Bhagwan Kisan Khodve, was convicted under Section 376(i) of the IPC, Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and other related charges for the rape of a 12-year-old girl on 20 January 2017. The victim testified that the accused came to her home seeking water and then forcibly raped her despite her resistance, during which she scratched him. The incident was reported three days later, on 23 January 2017.
Procedural History
- 2017: Incident occurred on 20 January; FIR registered on 23 January
- 2019: Special POCSO Case No.144/2019 initiated
- 2025: Special Judge, Buldhana, convicted the accused and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(i) IPC read with Section 42 of the POCSO Act, along with concurrent sentences under Sections 452, 506(II) IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act
- 2025: Applicant filed Criminal Appeal No.246/2025 and applied for suspension of sentence pending appeal
Relief Sought
The applicant sought suspension of sentence and release on bail during the pendency of the appeal, arguing that the prosecution’s case was materially weakened by the absence of medical corroboration and inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the absence of physical injuries on the victim’s body, as recorded in medical reports, can be grounds to discredit her testimony in a POCSO Act prosecution, particularly when the victim is a child and the delay in reporting is explainable.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The applicant’s counsel contended that the medical evidence, including the examination by PW-6 (Medical Officer), showed no signs of sexual assault - no hymenal tear, no perineal injury, and no trauma to the genitalia. The absence of scratches or injuries on the accused’s body, as per PW-7, further undermined the victim’s claim of resistance. Counsel relied on State of Maharashtra v. Suresh to argue that in the absence of medical corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained. They emphasized material omissions in the victim’s testimony and the three-day delay in reporting as indicators of unreliability.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor argued that the victim’s testimony was consistent, detailed, and inherently credible. The delay in reporting was attributable to the victim’s age, fear, and psychological trauma - factors recognized by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh. The absence of injuries was explained by the nature of the assault, the victim’s small stature, and the fact that medical examinations in children often fail to detect trauma due to physiological resilience. The State cited Kishore v. State of M.P. to assert that the victim’s testimony alone can sustain conviction in POCSO cases.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous evaluation of the evidentiary landscape under the POCSO Act, emphasizing that the Act was enacted to protect children from sexual abuse and that the law must not impose unrealistic burdens of corroboration. The Court noted that medical science does not always detect injuries in child sexual assault cases, particularly when the assault is non-violent or the victim is young. The Court observed:
"The human body, especially that of a child, may not always manifest visible trauma even after a forcible sexual assault. The absence of medical evidence cannot be equated with the absence of the offence."
The Court distinguished State of Maharashtra v. Suresh on the ground that it involved a mature adult victim with a clear delay and contradictory statements, whereas here, the victim was a 12-year-old child whose testimony was coherent, spontaneous, and consistent across stages. The Court further held that the delay of three days was not fatal, given the child’s vulnerability and the social stigma attached to sexual abuse in rural settings. The Court also noted that the accused’s own medical examination revealed no injuries, which was consistent with the victim’s account that she scratched him during resistance - minor scratches may not be visible or recorded.
The Court emphasized that Section 29 of the POCSO Act creates a presumption of guilt once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut it. The applicant had not adduced any credible evidence to rebut the victim’s testimony.
The Verdict
The applicant won on the application for suspension of sentence. The Court held that the victim’s testimony alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the POCSO Act, even in the absence of medical corroboration. The sentence was suspended pending appeal, and the applicant was granted bail on a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one solvent surety, subject to cooperation in the early hearing of the appeal.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Victim Testimony Is Presumed Credible in POCSO Cases
- Practitioners must not rely on absence of medical injuries as a basis to challenge the credibility of child victims
- Courts will not demand forensic perfection from child witnesses
- Defense arguments based solely on medical gaps must be supported by affirmative evidence of fabrication
Delay in Reporting Is Not Fatal
- Delays of up to 72 hours are routinely excused in POCSO cases involving minors
- Counsel must present context - fear, shame, family pressure, lack of awareness - as mitigating factors, not red flags
- Prosecutors should proactively introduce expert testimony on child trauma to preempt defense challenges
Bail Is Not Automatically Denied in POCSO Appeals
- Suspension of sentence and bail are permissible pending appeal if the appellant demonstrates an arguable case on merits
- Courts will weigh the likelihood of success on appeal against the victim’s right to a speedy trial
- Bail conditions must include cooperation with appellate proceedings
