Recently, in a matter examining the weight of direct testimony in cases involving child victims, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man for aggravated sexual assault on a four-year-old under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria found that the mother’s unwavering account, read together with the child’s trauma-laden conduct in the courtroom, was sufficient to establish the offence despite the absence of external injuries or medical corroboration.
The case stemmed from an incident in which the mother of the minor discovered the appellant inside her home in a compromising position near her sleeping daughter, who was then found crying in pain with her clothing disturbed and her private parts wet. A complaint was registered the same day, leading to an investigation, medical examination, and recording of the victim’s statement. The trial resulted in a conviction under Section 9(m) and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, which was subsequently affirmed by the High Court. Challenging these concurrent findings, the appellant approached the Apex Court seeking acquittal, principally contending that the absence of injury marks and the absence of an eyewitness rendered the conviction unsustainable.
The Appellant argued that the prosecution's case relied solely on the testimony of the victim’s mother and lacked independent corroboration. It was submitted that the medical examination did not reveal any external injury or bleeding, and that the redness observed could be attributed to innocent causes such as friction or infection. On this basis, the appellant contended that the benefit of doubt ought to have been extended, and the conviction set aside.
On the other hand, the State supported the concurrent findings of the courts below, asserting that the evidence of the victim’s parents was cogent and trustworthy. It was submitted that the sequence of events, coupled with the condition of the child and her behaviour during trial, established the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The State argued that the credibility of the prosecution witnesses was unimpeached and that medical evidence did not displace consistent direct testimony.
The Court examined the evidence of the minor’s parents, observing that both were consistent in their narration of events. Addressing the contention regarding the absence of injuries, the Court cited the medical testimony and held, “It may be true that Dr. Priyanka Toppo (PW6) did not find external injury marks on the victim’s body and stated that there was no bleeding of any kind. According to Medical Officer Dr. Nitish Anand (PW-8), the appellant was capable of having an intercourse. It is well settled that the medical evidence will take a backseat and even if do not corroborate with the ocular evidence, where the ocular evidence is consistent and cogent, the later would be allowed to prevail.”
The Bench also reproduced the trial court’s account of the victim’s conduct, noting the child’s distress and inability to depose in the presence of the accused. Highlighting this trauma-induced reaction, the Court stated, “The fact that the victim was in a frightened state upon seeing the accused is a pointer in itself. The whole sequence of events in course of recording of evidence of PW-1, was tale-telling.”
The Court held that the testimony of the mother, supported by the victim’s behaviour and surrounding circumstances, inspired confidence and warranted acceptance.
Lastly, the Court held that the findings of the trial court and High Court were “eminently legal and proper.” However, considering the period of incarceration already undergone, the Bench modified the sentence by reducing it from seven years to six years while maintaining the fine and default imprisonment as originally imposed. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed to this limited extent.
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari Vs. State Of Chhattisgarh
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 4732 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Aravind Kumar and Hon’ble Justice N.V. Anjaria
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Varnika Gupta
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Ankita Sharma
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
