The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that the testimony of a child victim in a POCSO case cannot be discounted merely due to the absence of physical injuries or a delayed complaint. This judgment underscores the necessity of contextualizing evidence through the lens of trauma, age, and psychological vulnerability, setting a critical precedent for prosecutorial strategy and judicial evaluation in child sexual abuse cases.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, a 38-year-old man residing near the victims’ home, was accused of sexually assaulting two girls, aged 7 and 8, on 15 June 2015. According to the prosecution, he lured them to his house, removed their clothes, touched their private parts, and threatened them with a knife to prevent disclosure. The elder victim, ‘PN’, did not disclose the incident for two days due to fear and trauma, eventually narrating it to her mother on 17 June 2015. The mother, along with the mother of the second victim, ‘PS’, filed a complaint at Police Station City Thanesar on 19 June 2015.
Procedural History
- 19 June 2015: FIR No. 450 registered under Sections 342, 506 IPC and Sections 6, 10, 18 of the POCSO Act.
- 19 June 2015: Medico-legal examination of ‘PN’ conducted at LNJP Hospital.
- 18 March 2016: Trial Court convicted the appellant on all charges.
- 19 March 2016: Sentencing order issued, awarding concurrent sentences of 6 months to 14 years imprisonment and fines.
- 2016: Criminal Appeal filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
- 19 August 2025: Amicus Curiae appointed to represent the appellant.
- 5 March 2026: Judgment pronounced by Justices Lisa Gill and Meenakshi I. Mehta.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought acquittal on grounds of: (1) unexplained delay in lodging the FIR; (2) absence of fresh injury marks in the medico-legal report; and (3) alleged false implication due to a 34-year-old civil dispute between families.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the absence of physical injuries and a four-day delay in registering the FIR can legally invalidate the testimony of child victims under the POCSO Act, particularly when their accounts are consistent and unimpeached in cross-examination.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The Amicus Curiae contended that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed due to: (1) the four-day delay in filing the FIR, which undermined its credibility; (2) the medico-legal report (Exhibit P4) stating no fresh injury marks on ‘PN’, which allegedly contradicted the claim of forcible rape; and (3) Exhibit D1, a 1981 complaint under Sections 107/150 Cr.P.C., which allegedly revealed a longstanding enmity between the families, suggesting a motive for false implication. Reliance was placed on State of U.P. v. Krishna to argue that absence of corroborative medical evidence warrants acquittal.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General argued that the delay was fully explained by the victims’ tender age and psychological trauma, as corroborated by the complainant’s testimony. The absence of injuries was not determinative, given the age of the victims and the nature of the assault. The alleged enmity was irrelevant, as Exhibit D1 did not involve the parties, was 34 years old, and was never put to the complainant during cross-examination. The prosecution relied on Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh to assert that the unshaken testimony of a child victim, supported by consistent corroboration, is sufficient for conviction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the evidence, emphasizing the unique vulnerabilities of child victims under the POCSO Act. It held that delay in reporting sexual abuse by minors cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution case when explained by psychological trauma and developmental immaturity. The testimony of PW6 (mother) and the sequential disclosures by the victims were found to be internally consistent and credible.
"The crux of the incident, of accused overpowering the victim and committing forcible act by forcing her to the bed, could be clearly established from the totality of evidence adduced by the prosecution. Merely because the medical evidence was less corroborative and less supportive or absent in details or indictive of no external injuries. It in no way weakened the prosecution case. Sole testimony of the victim was a strong evidence to rely on along with available attendant evidence."
The Court explicitly adopted the reasoning from Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, noting that children, especially aged 7 - 8, lack the physical capacity to resist adult assailants, and the absence of external injuries is neither unusual nor exculpatory. The medico-legal officer’s opinion that sexual assault “could not be ruled out” was deemed sufficient under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which presumes the accused’s guilt if the victim’s testimony is credible.
Regarding the alleged enmity, the Court found Exhibit D1 irrelevant: it predated the incident by 34 years, did not name the parties, and was never cross-examined. The mother of the appellant herself admitted under oath that she did not know the complainant or her family. The Court rejected the suggestion that a parent would risk her daughter’s dignity and family honor after decades to settle a petty civil dispute.
The testimony of the two child witnesses, PW1 and PW2, remained unshaken in cross-examination. No contradictions were elicited. The Court concluded that the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was neither perverse nor illegal.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the conviction under Sections 342, 506 IPC and Sections 6 and 18 of the POCSO Act. The core legal holding is that the uncorroborated but consistent testimony of a child victim, when credible and unimpeached, is sufficient for conviction under the POCSO Act, even in the absence of medical evidence or immediate reporting.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Victim Testimony Is Presumptively Credible in POCSO Cases
- Practitioners must now argue that delayed disclosure by child victims is normative, not suspicious, and must be contextualized with developmental psychology.
- Prosecutors should emphasize the trauma-informed nature of child testimony in closing arguments and avoid over-reliance on medical evidence.
- Defense counsel cannot rely on absence of injuries alone to seek acquittal; they must demonstrate specific contradictions or motive for fabrication.
Medical Evidence Is Corroborative, Not Conclusive
- Section 29 of the POCSO Act shifts the burden to the accused to rebut the victim’s testimony, not to the prosecution to prove injury.
- Medico-legal reports should be presented as one piece of evidence, not the linchpin of the case.
- Expert testimony on pediatric sexual assault patterns (e.g., lack of injury in non-violent penetration) should be introduced to educate the court.
False Implication Claims Require Concrete, Timely Proof
- Allegations of vendetta must be: (a) specifically put to the complainant in cross-examination; (b) contemporaneous with the incident; and (c) supported by independent evidence.
- Historical disputes, especially those unrelated to the parties or decades old, are legally irrelevant unless directly tied to the accusation.
- Courts will not entertain speculative claims of conspiracy without evidentiary foundation.
