The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that in cases involving sexual assault against a child below twelve years, the testimony of the victim’s guardian, when consistent and credible, can sustain a conviction even without independent corroboration - provided it aligns with medical and forensic evidence. This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s heightened duty to protect vulnerable child victims under the POCSO Act.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Bhupendra Netam, was accused of raping a 4-year-5-month-old girl, who was mute and mentally impaired, on the evening of 23 March 2019 in Parsoda village, Balod district. The victim’s mother, the sole eyewitness, testified that she heard the child crying while washing utensils outside. Upon returning, she found the appellant lying on top of the child, with her underwear removed and his lower garment pulled down. The appellant fled upon being confronted.
Procedural History
- 23 March 2019: Incident occurred; oral complaint lodged the next day.
- 24 March 2019: FIR registered under Sections 376, 450, 506 IPC and Sections 4, 5(k)(m), 6 of the POCSO Act.
- 2022: Special Judge (POCSO), Balod convicted the appellant under Section 376(2)(i)(j)(l) IPC and sentenced him to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
- 2022: Appeal filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging the conviction on grounds of unreliable testimony and lack of corroboration.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the conviction, arguing that the mother’s testimony was contradictory, uncorroborated, and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He contended that the trial court ignored material inconsistencies and failed to appreciate the absence of independent witnesses.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the uncorroborated testimony of a victim’s mother, when consistent with medical findings and the victim’s status as a child below twelve years under the POCSO Act, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the mother’s testimony contained material contradictions between her Section 161 CrPC statement, Section 164 CrPC statement, and trial deposition. He emphasized that no independent witness saw the act, and the prosecution’s case rested solely on the mother’s account. He cited Rai Sandeep v. State of NCT of Delhi to argue that only a "sterling witness" - whose testimony is flawless and corroborated by all material evidence - can be relied upon without corroboration. He further contended that the medical reports were inconclusive and did not definitively prove penetration.
For the Respondent
The State countered that the mother’s testimony was consistent across all stages, including her detailed Section 164 statement recorded before a Judicial Magistrate. It highlighted that the victim’s age was established by birth certificate (Ex.P-8), and the medical evidence (Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-26) confirmed hymen rupture, labial damage, and presence of semen on the appellant’s underwear and victim’s swabs. The State relied on Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand to assert that courts must treat crimes against children with utmost seriousness and that corroboration is not a legal requirement when the evidence is credible and consistent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence, beginning with the victim’s age. It held that the birth certificate (Ex.P-8) was unchallenged and established the victim as a child below twelve years under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. This triggered the aggravated punishment under Section 376(2)(i)(j)(l) IPC, which mandates a minimum 20-year sentence.
The Court then examined the mother’s testimony. It noted that while she was the sole eyewitness, her account remained materially consistent across her police statement, Section 164 statement, and trial deposition. Crucially, she denied all defense allegations of fabrication, mental instability of the child leading to self-undressing, or prior familiarity with the accused.
The Court emphasized that the POCSO Act was enacted to protect children who are inherently vulnerable and often unable to testify. It cited Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand to underscore that courts must not impose rigid corroboration requirements that may defeat justice in child sexual abuse cases. The Court observed:
"Children are precious human resources of our country; they are the country’s future... exploitation of children in such a manner is a crime against humanity and the society. Therefore, the children and more particularly the girl child deserve full protection and need greater care and protection."
The Court further held that the medical evidence corroborated the mother’s account: hymen rupture, labial damage, and semen found on the appellant’s underwear and victim’s vaginal swab (Ex.P-26) established penetration. The absence of bleeding was explained as consistent with the victim’s age and the nature of the assault.
The Court distinguished Rai Sandeep by noting that the "sterling witness" doctrine applies where testimony is extraordinary and flawless - but does not require corroboration in every case. Here, the mother’s testimony was not extraordinary in status, but it was credible, consistent, and materially supported by forensic evidence.
The Court rejected the appellant’s claim of hostile witnesses, noting that none of the prosecution witnesses retracted their statements. The father’s testimony merely confirmed the mother’s account and the subsequent confrontation with the accused.
The Verdict
The appellant’s appeal was dismissed. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction under Section 376(2)(i)(j)(l) IPC and the 20-year sentence. The Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through the mother’s credible testimony, the victim’s confirmed age, and the forensic evidence, without requiring independent corroboration.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Testimony of Guardian Is Sufficient When Consistent and Corroborated by Forensics
- Practitioners must argue that in POCSO cases involving non-verbal or mentally impaired minors, the guardian’s testimony, if consistent and supported by medical evidence, is legally adequate for conviction.
- Do not automatically demand independent eyewitnesses; focus instead on the internal consistency of the guardian’s account and alignment with forensic findings.
Age Documentation Is Critical and Unassailable Unless Challenged
- Birth certificates, school records, or hospital records establishing age are conclusive unless the defense files a formal challenge under Section 11 of the POCSO Act.
- Failure to contest age documentation at trial waives the right to dispute it on appeal.
Medical Evidence Need Not Be Perfect - It Must Be Probative
- Minor inconsistencies in medical reports (e.g., absence of bleeding) do not invalidate the prosecution’s case if the core findings (hymen rupture, semen presence) align with the alleged act.
- Courts will accept medical opinions that are plausible and consistent with the victim’s age and condition.
Leniency Is Not Permissible in POCSO Cases
- Courts must apply the POCSO Act’s protective intent strictly. Any attempt to impose evidentiary standards higher than those in ordinary rape cases will be rejected.
- The burden is on the defense to create reasonable doubt - not on the prosecution to meet an impossible standard of corroboration.
