The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that the testimony of a child victim in a sexual assault case, when found credible and consistent with medical and forensic evidence, is sufficient for conviction without corroboration. This judgment reinforces the legal principle that survivors of child sexual abuse must not be subjected to heightened scrutiny or demands for independent proof, particularly when the evidence paints a coherent and uncontradicted picture of the crime.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Rajesh Kumar Hidko, was convicted under Sections 450, 363, and 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(d) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for the abduction and rape of a three-year-old girl. The incident occurred on the night of 12.03.2023 in Duwa village, Kanker district, Chhattisgarh. The victim, identified as PW-1, was sleeping with her grandmother on the veranda when she was allegedly taken away by the appellant and sexually assaulted in nearby fields.
Key Facts
- The victim was born on 11.11.2019, making her three years, four months, and one day old at the time of the incident on 12.03.2023.
- The victim’s grandmother (PW-4) reported her disappearance at approximately 4:00 A.M. on 13.03.2023.
- An unnumbered FIR was registered at Kachha Police Post on 13.03.2023, followed by a numbered FIR (No. 34/2023) at Bhanupratappur Police Station.
- The victim was recovered later that day and taken to a medical facility.
- A birth certificate (Ex.P-4) was seized and admitted as evidence, establishing the victim’s age.
- The victim’s statement was recorded by a female police officer under Section 164 CrPC.
- Medical examinations by three doctors (PW-6, PW-11, PW-20) revealed physical trauma consistent with sexual assault, including abrasions, swelling, and lacerations on the labia minora and hymen.
- The Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex.P-32) confirmed the presence of human semen and sperm on the appellant’s underwear and semen slide.
- The appellant was arrested on 13.03.2023; arrest panchnama (Ex.P-23) and seizure memo of his underwear (Ex.P-28) were recorded.
- The appellant denied all allegations and chose not to present any defense evidence.
Procedural History
- 12.03.2023: Incident occurred; victim abducted.
- 13.03.2023: Victim recovered; FIR registered; appellant arrested.
- 14.03.2023: Medical examination of victim conducted.
- 26.09.2023: Special Judge (POCSO), Bhanupratappur, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to:
- Life imprisonment under Section 376AB IPC with fine of Rs.10,000 (default: 6 months RI)
- 7 years RI under Section 363 IPC with fine of Rs.500 (default: 1 month RI)
- 10 years RI under Section 450 IPC with fine of Rs.1,000 (default: 2 months RI)
- 28.03.2023: Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2024 before the Chhattisgarh High Court.
- 13.04.2026: Appeal heard finally; application for suspension of sentence and bail (I.A. No. 01/2023) disposed of.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
- Argued that the prosecution case was based on surmises and contradictions in witness statements.
- Contended that the victim’s testimony was unreliable due to her young age and lack of clarity in cross-examination.
- Claimed that the appellant was falsely implicated and that no direct evidence linked him to the crime.
- Asserted that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate.
For the Respondent (State)
- Maintained that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent medical, forensic, and testimonial evidence.
- Emphasized that the victim’s statement, though brief, was natural and corroborated by physical injuries and scientific reports.
- Stressed that the POCSO Act mandates stringent treatment of crimes against children and that judicial discretion must reflect societal responsibility.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought acquittal or, in the alternative, reduction of sentence. He also sought bail pending appeal, which was subsumed in the final hearing of the appeal.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the conviction under the POCSO Act and Section 376AB IPC can be sustained solely on the testimony of a child victim, supported by medical and forensic evidence, in the absence of independent corroboration.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel relied on alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s cross-examination, particularly her admission that she did not know who took her away, despite pointing to the appellant. He argued that the trial court had stretched its imagination to fill evidentiary gaps and that the prosecution failed to establish a clear chain of events. He cited State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash to argue that courts must exercise caution in child sexual assault cases, but misapplied it to suggest that corroboration was mandatory.
For the Respondent
The State’s counsel relied on Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, and Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand to argue that the victim’s testimony, when credible and consistent with medical findings, is sufficient for conviction. He emphasized that the POCSO Act was enacted to protect vulnerable children and that judicial interpretation must reflect the legislative intent to eliminate procedural hurdles that re-victimize survivors.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence, beginning with the victim’s age. The birth certificate (Ex.P-4) was not challenged by the defense, and the victim’s age of three years at the time of the incident was conclusively established. This placed the case squarely under Section 376AB IPC, which mandates life imprisonment for rape of a child below twelve years.
The Court then examined the victim’s testimony. While acknowledging that the child’s statements were brief and at times fragmented, the Court noted that her consistent identification of the appellant as the perpetrator, even during cross-examination, was not the product of coaching. Her pointing to the appellant in court, coupled with her simple declaration that "the accused raped me," was deemed credible given her age and the trauma of the event.
The Court emphasized that the Indian legal system has long recognized the unique vulnerability of child victims. Quoting Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, the Court observed:
"The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the judge."
The Court further relied on Ranjit Hazarika and Nawabuddin to hold that a child victim is not an accomplice and must not be subjected to the same evidentiary standards as adult witnesses. The Supreme Court’s observation in Nawabuddin was pivotal:
"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."
The Court found that the medical evidence from three qualified doctors (PW-6, PW-11, PW-20) independently corroborated the victim’s account. The presence of lacerations on the labia minora, swelling of the hymen, and abrasions on the back were consistent with forcible penetration. The FSL report (Ex.P-32) confirming the presence of the appellant’s semen on his underwear provided objective, scientific validation of the assault.
The Court rejected the appellant’s claim of false implication, noting the absence of any motive for the family to fabricate such a grave allegation against a stranger. The prompt reporting, immediate medical attention, and seamless chain of custody of evidence further strengthened the prosecution’s case.
The Court concluded that the totality of evidence - the victim’s testimony, medical findings, forensic report, and absence of any plausible alternative explanation - satisfied the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge (POCSO) were upheld. The appellant shall serve:
- Life imprisonment under Section 376AB IPC;
- Seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 IPC;
- Ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 450 IPC;
- Fines of Rs.10,000, Rs.500, and Rs.1,000 respectively, with default terms of six months, one month, and two months of rigorous imprisonment.
The appellant, already in custody since 13.03.2023, shall continue serving his sentence. The High Court directed the trial court and jail authorities to provide the appellant with a certified copy of the judgment and inform him of his right to appeal to the Supreme Court through the Legal Services Committees.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Victim Testimony Alone Can Sustain Conviction
- Practitioners must not argue for acquittal in POCSO cases merely because the child victim’s testimony lacks detail or contains minor inconsistencies.
- Courts are now bound to evaluate child testimony with empathy and contextual understanding, not with the skepticism reserved for adult witnesses.
- The burden shifts to the defense to demonstrate that the testimony is inherently unreliable or fabricated - not to the prosecution to provide corroboration.
Medical and Forensic Evidence Is Critical
- Even when a child’s statement is sparse, contemporaneous medical reports and forensic findings (e.g., semen, DNA, injuries) can bridge evidentiary gaps.
- Prosecutors must ensure that medical examinations are conducted by qualified personnel and that samples are preserved under strict chain-of-custody protocols.
- The FSL report in this case was decisive; its absence would have weakened the prosecution’s case significantly.
Judicial Duty Under POCSO Is Non-Negotiable
- Courts must interpret the POCSO Act as a protective, not punitive, statute.
- Leniency in sentencing or acquittal on technical grounds undermines the legislative intent to shield children from sexual violence.
- Judges must actively counter societal stigma by affirming the credibility of child survivors, not by demanding perfection in their testimony.
