Sikkim High Court: Corroboration Not Required for Conviction If Victim’s Testimony is Trustworthy; Rapid Healing of Sodomy Injuries Does Not Undermine Credibility—Upholds Conviction for Repeated Sexual Assault on Minor

Court’s Decision:

The High Court of Sikkim upheld the conviction of the appellant for the offences charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. However, the court reduced the sentence under Sections 5(l) and 5(m) of the POCSO Act, 2012, both punishable under Section 6 of the Act, from 25 years to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. The court found the victim’s testimony to be reliable, coherent, and sufficiently corroborated by other evidence, affirming that the accused committed the offence multiple times.

Facts:

The appellant was accused of sodomizing and sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy (PW-4) on eight separate occasions during January 2021. The victim’s father (PW-3) lodged an FIR on February 9, 2021, after the victim disclosed the abuse to his mother (PW-5), who informed her husband. The FIR led to charges being framed under Sections 4 and 7 of the POCSO Act and Sections 377 and 506 of the IPC. During the trial, 14 witnesses were examined, and the victim provided a detailed account of the repeated sexual abuse, which was found to be candid and convincing by the trial court.

The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as follows:

1. Section 377, IPC: 10 years rigorous imprisonment and ₹20,000 fine.
2. Section 506, IPC: 2 years rigorous imprisonment and ₹5,000 fine.
3. Section 5(l) and 5(m), POCSO Act, 2012, punishable under Section 6: 25 years rigorous imprisonment for each offence and ₹20,000 and ₹10,000 fines, respectively.

The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and the fine amounts carried default stipulations.

Issues:

The primary issue was whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellant based on the evidence provided, and whether the sentences awarded were appropriate given the circumstances.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner argued that there were contradictions in the victim’s statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and his court testimony. Further, the medical examination conducted five days after the last alleged incident failed to detect any injuries, which the petitioner claimed weakened the prosecution’s case. The petitioner also pointed out that crucial evidence, such as the bed sheet, was not seized, which could have been material in proving the alleged offence.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondent countered that the victim’s testimony was consistent, credible, and corroborated by his parents and other witnesses. The absence of injuries did not diminish the credibility of the victim’s account, as such injuries can heal quickly, and the victim’s description of the incidents, including threats from the accused, supported the prosecution’s case.

Analysis of the Law:

The court reiterated that under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, there is a presumption against the accused once the foundational facts are established. The onus then shifts to the accused to prove that they did not have the requisite mental state to commit the offence. In this case, the appellant failed to rebut the presumption. Additionally, the court referenced the decision in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Manga Singh (2019), where it was held that the absence of injuries does not negate the offence of rape, and solitary testimony of a victim is sufficient for conviction if found credible.

Precedent Analysis:

The court cited State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Sanjay Kumar alias Sunny (2017), emphasizing that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in sexual offence cases, provided the victim’s testimony is trustworthy and inspires confidence. The court also referred to Modi’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, which notes that signs of sodomy in minors may heal rapidly, thereby explaining the lack of injuries found during the medical examination.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court found that the victim’s account was detailed and compelling, recounting the manner and frequency of the abuse. His statements were corroborated by his parents and other witnesses, and there was no apparent motive for a child of his age to falsely implicate the appellant. The absence of physical injuries did not negate the offence, as explained in the precedents. The court also observed that the appellant’s apology to the victim’s mother (PW-5) when confronted about the incidents further corroborated the victim’s testimony.

Conclusion:

The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision to convict the appellant for the offences under Section 377, IPC, and Sections 5(l) and 5(m) of the POCSO Act, both punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, considering all factors, the court reduced the sentence under Sections 5(l) and 5(m) from 25 years to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, with all sentences running concurrently.

Implications:

The ruling underscores the court’s commitment to protecting minors from sexual abuse under the POCSO Act. It also highlights the principle that the lack of physical injuries or absence of certain evidence does not undermine the credibility of a victim’s consistent testimony, especially when the abuse involves a child.

The judgment reinforces the strict liability standard under the POCSO Act and clarifies the interpretation of Sections 29 and 30 concerning the burden of proof on the accused. This ruling serves as a critical reference for similar cases under the POCSO Act and provides a framework for assessing evidence in child sexual abuse matters.

Also Read – Supreme Court Restores Conviction for the Murders of MLA and His Bodyguard, Highlights Serious Lapses in High Court’s Acquittal of Accused