Court’s Decision:
The High Court of Meghalaya dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, affirming the conviction under Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act for aggravated sexual assault on a minor. The court altered the charge initially framed under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and upheld the trial court’s decision to impose a sentence of five years’ imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000.
Facts:
The appellant was convicted for committing sexual assault on a minor girl, aged 8, on 24.01.2013. The mother of the victim filed an FIR on the same day, leading to the appellant’s arrest. The prosecution’s case was based on the testimony of the survivor and her mother, who witnessed the incident.
During the trial, the prosecution presented nine witnesses, including the medical examiner, whose testimony corroborated the victim’s claims. The appellant denied the charges, claiming that he treated the child as his daughter and had no malafide intention.
Issues:
- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Whether the trial court erred in its conviction under Section 10 of the POCSO Act instead of Section 9(m).
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner (appellant) argued that there were contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the complainant (mother of the victim). The appellant contended that the complainant admitted to having her neighbor assist in writing the FIR and that the medical report did not conclusively prove that the scratch marks on the victim were caused by the appellant. He also argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the contradictions in the evidence and wrongfully convicted him.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents defended the trial court’s judgment, asserting that the testimony of the survivor, corroborated by the complainant and medical evidence, was sufficient to prove the appellant’s guilt. The prosecution emphasized that the survivor’s testimony was consistent and credible, and no amount of cross-examination could shake her evidence. Furthermore, the law does not require corroboration for the testimony of a child victim in sexual assault cases.
Analysis of the Law:
The court noted that under Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, aggravated sexual assault on a child under twelve years of age is punishable. The court relied on established precedents, emphasizing that the testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases requires no further corroboration if deemed credible and reliable.
Precedent Analysis:
The court referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Ganesan v. State (2020), which held that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can suffice for conviction in sexual offences if found trustworthy. The court also highlighted previous judgments affirming that minor contradictions in testimonies should not undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court found that the appellant’s argument regarding inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainant did not hold weight. It emphasized that the survivor’s consistent and detailed account, supported by the medical evidence, proved the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court further noted that the alteration of the charge from Section 10 to Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act was appropriate, given the age of the victim.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant had committed the offence as alleged and that the trial court’s judgment was based on substantial evidence. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Implications:
This judgment reinforces the principle that the testimony of a minor in sexual assault cases, if credible, requires no additional corroboration for a conviction. The court’s reliance on established precedents ensures that victims of sexual assault, particularly minors, are not subjected to undue scrutiny or disbelief in the absence of corroborative evidence. It also highlights the importance of correctly framing charges under the appropriate sections of the POCSO Act.
