Can a conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act be sustained if the victim’s testimony is uncorroborated by medical evidence?

Yes, in principle, but only if the testimony is credible and plausible. This judgment holds that when the victim’s account is inherently improbable-such as an assault occurring in a public place during school hours without any witnesses-and medical evidence fails to confirm the allegation, the absence of corroboration may create reasonable doubt sufficient to acquit.

Does the absence of eyewitnesses automatically lead to acquittal in POCSO cases?

No, but it becomes a decisive factor when the alleged incident occurred in a public place where witnesses would reasonably be expected. This judgment establishes that the failure to produce any eyewitness in such a context, combined with other inconsistencies, can raise reasonable doubt under Section 101 of the Evidence Act.

Is the testimony of a child victim always sufficient for conviction under the POCSO Act?

No. While the law mandates sensitivity towards child victims, this judgment clarifies that their testimony must still be logically consistent and plausible. If the version defies common experience-such as a 500-metre dragging in a populated area without notice-it cannot be accepted in isolation without corroboration.

POCSO acquittal due to implausible public setting Calcutta

The Calcutta High Court has set aside a conviction under the POCSO Act after holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where the alleged assault occurred in a public space during school hours with no corroborative eyewitnesses and inconclusive medical evidence. This judgment underscores the critical need for credible corroboration in sexual offence cases involving child victims, even when the victim’s testimony is otherwise consistent.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Niren Barmen, was convicted under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for the rape of a minor girl, aged approximately 14 years, on January 9, 2016. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a neighbour, accosted the victim while she was on her way to school, dragged her 500 metres into a nearby forest, and raped her. The trial court convicted him on June 6, 2022 and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000 on June 8, 2022.

Key Facts

The incident was alleged to have occurred on 09.01.2016 at approximately 10:00 a.m., during school hours.
The victim was a Class IX student attending school from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The alleged accostment occurred on a public road leading to the school, which, according to the prosecution, was regularly used by students, parents, and other members of the public.
The victim claimed she was dragged by the appellant for about 500 metres into a forest, held by one hand while he held her bicycle with the other.
She raised her voice for help but no one responded.
She sustained scratch injuries on her body, which she showed to the doctor.
The victim reported the incident to her parents in the evening of the same day.
Her parents approached the Gram Panchayat on 09.01.2016, but no action was taken.
A written complaint was lodged with the police on 01.01.2016 (date discrepancy noted in judgment).
The First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 01.01.2016.
The victim was medically examined on 11.01.2016 by P.W. 2, the medical officer.
The victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded and marked as Exhibit 1.
The victim’s clothing was seized and marked as Exhibit 4/1.
A rough sketch map of the alleged route and location was marked as Exhibit 5.
The victim did not sustain any injury to her private parts.
No nail scratches or defensive wounds were found on the appellant.
No independent eyewitnesses to the accostment or rape were examined by the prosecution.

Procedural History

09.01.2016: Alleged incident of rape.
01.01.2016: Written complaint lodged with police; FIR registered.
11.01.2016: Medical examination of victim conducted.
12.12.2017: Charge under Section 4 of POCSO Act framed against the appellant.
2017 - 2022: Trial conducted before the Special POCSO Court, Alipurduar.
06.06.2022: Judgment of conviction delivered.
08.06.2022: Sentence of life imprisonment and Rs. 20,000 fine imposed.
25.03.2026: Appeal heard and decided by the Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri.

The Parties' Positions

For the Appellant

The appellant’s counsel contended that the prosecution’s case was riddled with reasonable doubt. The alleged assault occurred in broad daylight on a public road used by students and parents. No independent witness corroborated the victim’s claim of being dragged 500 metres through a populated area. The medical evidence did not confirm rape or even sexual assault. The absence of any injury to the victim’s private parts and the lack of defensive wounds on the appellant further undermined the prosecution’s version. The counsel argued that the benefit of doubt must accrue to the accused.

For the Respondent

The State contended that the victim’s testimony was credible, consistent, and detailed. The victim was a minor, and her account should not be disbelieved merely because of the absence of medical corroboration or independent witnesses. The State relied on State v. Ramesh and State v. Suresh to argue that the testimony of a child victim, if trustworthy, is sufficient for conviction even without corroboration.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought quashing of the conviction and sentence, and his immediate release. He also sought discharge from any pending bail applications and a direction that he be released subject to a bond under Section 437A CrPC.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the prosecution established the charge under Section 4 of the POCSO Act beyond reasonable doubt, given the absence of eyewitnesses to the alleged public accostment, the inconclusive medical evidence, and the implausibility of the victim’s account occurring unnoticed in a heavily traversed area during school hours.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

The appellant’s counsel relied on the principle that the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution and that every reasonable doubt must benefit the accused. He emphasized that the victim’s claim of being dragged 500 metres along a public road during school hours, while raising her voice for help, would inevitably attract attention. The absence of any corroborative testimony from students, parents, or passersby rendered the account inherently improbable. He further highlighted that the medical officer, P.W. 2, explicitly stated he could not confirm whether sexual assault had occurred. The lack of injury to the private parts and the absence of any forensic evidence further weakened the case. The counsel cited State of U.P. v. Krishna to argue that when the version of the victim is implausible and unsupported by material evidence, conviction cannot be sustained.

For the Respondent

The State argued that the testimony of a child victim, especially in sexual offence cases, must be treated with sensitivity and not subjected to rigid standards of corroboration. It relied on State v. Ramesh and State v. Suresh to assert that the absence of medical evidence does not invalidate the victim’s testimony. The State contended that the victim’s account was consistent, detailed, and uncontradicted, and that the trial court was entitled to rely on it. It further argued that the delay in reporting was explainable due to the victim’s age and fear, and that the Gram Panchayat’s inaction did not undermine the credibility of the complaint.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence, particularly focusing on the physical plausibility of the victim’s account. It noted that the alleged incident occurred at 10:00 a.m. on a school day, on a road leading to a school, a location that would, in normal circumstances, be occupied by students, parents, and other members of the public.

"Incident is alleged to take place at a time when the school was open. Students are supposed to be using that road to arrive at the school. Apart from the students, there will be parents accompanying such students to the school. There will be members of the public using such road also."

The Court observed that despite this, the prosecution failed to examine a single independent witness who could confirm the appellant’s act of accosting the victim on the road or dragging her into the forest. The Court further noted that the victim’s claim of being dragged for 500 metres while holding a bicycle and raising her voice for help would have been impossible to miss in such a setting.

The Court also examined the medical evidence. P.W. 2, the examining doctor, stated in cross-examination:

"In his opinion, he was not sure as to whether the victim was sexually assaulted or not. He also stated that, he did not find any injury on the body of the victim."

The Court held that while the testimony of a child victim need not be corroborated by medical evidence in every case, the absence of corroboration becomes significant when the version of the victim is inherently improbable. The Court emphasized:

"Reasonable doubt, if any raised, should benefit the accused. Reasonable doubts however, need to emanate out of the facts established."

The Court concluded that the combination of the implausible public setting, the absence of eyewitnesses, and the inconclusive medical report created a reasonable doubt that could not be resolved in favour of the prosecution. The Court further noted that the victim’s testimony, while consistent internally, could not be accepted in isolation when it defied common experience and lacked external support.

The Verdict

The appellant succeeded. The Calcutta High Court set aside the judgment of conviction dated 06.06.2022 and the order of sentence dated 08.06.2022. The appellant is directed to be set at large immediately, subject to his custody not being required in any other police case. He shall furnish a bond to the satisfaction of the Trial Court under Section 437A of the Criminal Procedure Code, valid for six months from the date of this order. All pending applications, including bail, are disposed of. A copy of this judgment and the trial court records shall be sent to the jurisdictional court forthwith.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Public Place Allegations Require Corroboration

Practitioners must now rigorously assess whether alleged sexual offences occurring in public spaces during peak hours can be sustained without eyewitnesses.
The absence of corroborative testimony in such settings may create reasonable doubt, even if the victim’s testimony is otherwise consistent.
Prosecutors should prioritize securing independent witnesses in cases involving public accostment.

Medical Evidence Gains Weight in Doubtful Cases

While medical evidence is not always mandatory under POCSO, this judgment confirms that its absence or inconclusiveness becomes decisive when the victim’s account is implausible.
In cases where injuries to private parts are absent and no foreign material is found, the prosecution must offer a compelling explanation for the discrepancy.
Defence counsel should highlight medical reports that fail to confirm assault as a critical point of reasonable doubt.

Judicial Caution Against Overreliance on Victim Testimony

Courts will not automatically accept the testimony of a child victim if it contradicts common experience or lacks external support.
The judgment reinforces that the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt remains absolute, even in sensitive cases.
This does not diminish the importance of child victims’ testimony but requires courts to apply logical scrutiny to its plausibility.

POCSO Act | Reasonable Doubt Established by Implausible Public Setting & Lack of Eyewitnesses : Calcutta HC