The Bombay High Court has clarified that the absence of medical corroboration for penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act cannot be overlooked, even when the victim’s testimony is otherwise credible. While upholding conviction for sexual assault and outraging modesty, the Court quashed the rape conviction due to insufficient evidence of penetration, reinforcing the necessity of objective corroboration in child sexual abuse cases.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Mangesh Janrao Tayde, a 32-year-old labourer from Ramgaon, Akola, was convicted and sentenced under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code for allegedly committing penetrative sexual assault and sexual assault on his 11-year-old cousin niece on 17.01.2021. The prosecution alleged that while the victim was plucking pulse pods in an agricultural field, the appellant followed her, removed her clothing, attempted penovaginal intercourse, and bit her hand when she resisted. The victim fled to her home and reported the incident to her parents, leading to registration of Crime No. 0022/2021.
Key Facts
- The victim, born on 23.08.2008, was 11 years and 6 months old at the time of the incident on 17.01.2021.
- The victim’s birth was officially recorded in the Akola Municipal Corporation’s birth register (Entry No. 12356, dated 15.09.2018), corroborated by her parents, PW-3 and PW-5.
- The victim was examined by two medical officers: PW-8 (Dr. Prachi S. Koranne) and PW-7 (Dr. Ariz Uffat Haque).
- Medical report (Exhibit-51) recorded the victim’s history as "attempt to commit penetrative intercourse and bite on the hand of the appellant," but noted: "no injury or inflammation over the private part," and "hymen intact."
- The final opinion column in the medical report was left blank.
- The appellant was found to have a bite mark on his left supraclavicular region, corroborating the victim’s claim of biting him during resistance.
- The spot panchanama (Exhibit-26) and testimony of PW-1 (Shubham V. Raut) confirmed the incident occurred in a pulse field, not visible from the main road.
- The victim denied telling PW-4 (Nilesh, a local grazier) that she had fallen while playing, contradicting his testimony.
- The appellant denied all allegations in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., claiming false implication.
Procedural History
- 17.01.2021: Alleged incident occurred in agricultural field near Ramgaon, Akola.
- 18.01.2021: Crime No. 0022/2021 registered at Borgaon Manju Police Station under Sections 354, 376, 376(2)(f), 376(3) IPC and Sections 4, 8 POCSO Act.
- 18.01.2021: Victim referred for medical examination.
- 19.01.2021: Appellant arrested and medically examined; clothes of both parties seized.
- 25.07.2021: Chargesheet filed.
- 05.08.2021: Charges framed under Sections 376(2)(f) IPC read with Section 4 POCSO Act and Section 354 IPC read with Section 8 POCSO Act.
- 25.08.2023: Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, convicted and sentenced appellant to 10 years RI + Rs. 5,000 fine for rape (Section 376(2)(f) IPC + Section 4 POCSO) and 3 years RI + Rs. 1,000 fine for sexual assault (Section 354 IPC + Section 8 POCSO), with sentences to run concurrently.
- 17.04.2026: Appeal heard and judgment pronounced by Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
- Argued that medical evidence completely contradicted the victim’s version of penetration.
- Highlighted absence of any injury on the victim’s body or private parts despite rough terrain and struggle.
- Contended that the victim’s testimony was unreliable and exaggerated.
- Relied on Kailas s/o. Hiraman Salve v. State of Maharashtra to argue that absence of parental testimony and lack of school records rendered age and incident unproven.
- Suggested at best, an attempt to commit sexual assault could be established.
For the Respondent/State
- Maintained that the victim’s testimony remained unshaken despite rigorous cross-examination.
- Emphasized that the bite mark on the appellant’s body corroborated the victim’s account.
- Cited the official birth certificate and parental testimony to establish the victim’s age as below 18.
- Invoked the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which shifts the burden to the accused to disprove the offence.
- Argued that the victim’s credibility was intact and no motive for false implication was shown.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the conviction under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act, and reduction of sentence to reflect only the lesser offence of sexual assault. The State sought dismissal of the appeal and upholding of the trial court’s conviction and sentence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the prosecution established penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(f) IPC when the victim’s testimony lacked medical corroboration, despite the presence of a bite mark and the applicability of Section 29 presumption.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel contended that the medical evidence was decisive in negating penetration. The victim’s own history to the medical officer did not mention penetration, and the hymen was intact with no signs of trauma. The absence of injuries on the victim’s body, despite the alleged struggle on a soil-and-nut-strewn field, rendered her account implausible. The bite mark, while corroborative of a scuffle, did not prove penetration. The counsel relied on Kailas s/o. Hiraman Salve, where the court held that uncorroborated testimony, especially without age proof, cannot sustain a conviction for penetrative sexual assault.
For the Respondent/State
The State argued that the victim’s testimony was consistent, credible, and unshaken in cross-examination. The bite mark on the appellant’s body was a crucial corroborative circumstance. The official birth certificate and parental testimony conclusively established the victim’s age. The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which presumes the accused guilty unless disproved, was triggered. The appellant offered no defence beyond a blanket denial, which was insufficient to rebut the presumption. The State relied on Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, where the Supreme Court held that absence of hymen rupture or injuries does not negate rape if the victim’s testimony is trustworthy.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence, distinguishing between the legal standards for penetrative sexual assault and sexual assault under the POCSO Act. It acknowledged the importance of the victim’s testimony as the star witness but emphasized that the absence of medical corroboration for penetration could not be ignored, particularly when the victim’s own medical history did not allege penetration.
"The history given by the Victim to the Medical Officer does not corroborate the Victim's evidence of rape/penetration. Even the medical evidence shows two different versions of history given by the Victim at the time of medical examination."
The Court noted that while the victim stated the appellant removed her clothing and attempted intercourse, the medical officer recorded only an "attempt to commit penetrative intercourse" and noted no injury or inflammation. The final opinion column was blank, indicating the doctor did not conclude penetration occurred.
The Court further observed that the victim’s claim of falling on a rough, soil-and-nut-covered field without sustaining any injury was medically improbable. The presence of a bite mark on the appellant’s body was accepted as corroboration of a struggle, but not of penetration.
The Court distinguished Ranjit Hazarika, noting that in that case, the victim’s testimony was supported by other circumstantial evidence and the medical opinion was explicitly contradicted by the court’s overall assessment. Here, the medical evidence was not merely inconclusive - it was directly inconsistent with the allegation of penetration.
The Court held that while the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act applied, it could not override the evidentiary gap regarding penetration. The appellant’s denial, though bare, was sufficient in this context because the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving the essential ingredient of penetration beyond reasonable doubt.
However, the Court found the evidence sufficient to establish sexual assault under Section 7 POCSO Act and outraging modesty under Section 354 IPC. The act of removing clothing, touching private parts, and the accompanying struggle were clearly established, and the bite mark corroborated the victim’s account of resistance.
The Verdict
The appeal was partly allowed. The conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act for penetrative sexual assault were quashed and set aside. The appellant was acquitted of those charges. The conviction and sentence under Section 354 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act for sexual assault were upheld. The appellant was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, with default imprisonment of one month. The period already undergone in custody was set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The seized property was to be destroyed after the appeal period. The trial court was directed to issue a conviction warrant and inform the jail authorities.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Medical Evidence Cannot Be Disregarded in POCSO Cases
- Practitioners must treat medical reports as critical, not ancillary, evidence in sexual assault cases involving children.
- Absence of injuries or intact hymen does not automatically disprove assault, but absence of corroboration for penetration when the victim’s medical history omits it weakens the prosecution’s case.
- Courts will not rely solely on the Section 29 presumption if the core act (penetration) lacks objective support.
Distinction Between Sexual Assault and Penetrative Sexual Assault Is Crucial
- Prosecutors must clearly plead and prove the nature of the act: touching vs. penetration.
- If medical evidence supports only touching or attempted penetration, charges under Section 4 POCSO Act must be reduced to Section 7.
- Convictions under Section 376(2)(f) IPC require unequivocal proof of penetration; failure to establish this warrants acquittal on that count.
Victim Credibility Must Be Assessed Holistically
- A victim’s testimony remains vital, but its credibility is enhanced by consistency and corroboration, not diminished by minor omissions.
- Inconsistencies in the victim’s account to medical personnel must be addressed and explained.
- The presence of a bite mark or other physical evidence of resistance strengthens the case for lesser offences even when penetration is unproven.
