Court’s decision
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for aggravated sexual assault on a child under the relevant provision of the special statute governing child protection. The Court held that the consistent and reliable testimony of the child’s parents, supported by the medical evidence indicating redness in the private parts of the 4-year-old victim, constituted sufficient proof of the offence. It rejected arguments relying on absence of external injuries or eyewitnesses. However, considering that the maximum sentence had been imposed and that the appellant had already undergone more than four years and five months in custody, the Court reduced the sentence from seven years to six years, maintaining the fine and default sentence.
Facts
The incident occurred in August 2021 when the parents of the minor victim returned home with two men, including the appellant, after collecting wood. After serving food, the mother entered the house and found the appellant wearing only shorts, sitting near her minor daughter who was lying on the bed. The child’s undergarments were found pulled down, and she was crying in pain. She pointed to discomfort in her private parts, prompting the mother to raise an alarm. The appellant fled. The victim was medically examined, and redness in her private region was noted. A criminal case was registered under provisions of the general penal code and the special child protection statute.
Issues
The Supreme Court identified key issues:
- Whether the evidence of the parents, particularly the mother, was credible and sufficient to uphold conviction under aggravated sexual assault.
- Whether lack of direct eyewitness testimony or absence of external injuries weakened the prosecution case.
- Whether the conduct of the 4-year-old victim during courtroom testimony, including visible fear and inability to speak, could be legally treated as corroborative.
- Whether the sentence awarded required reconsideration in light of the statutory minimum and the appellant’s period of custody.
Petitioner’s arguments
The appellant argued that there were no eyewitnesses and that the mother’s version lacked independent corroboration. It was submitted that medical evidence did not reveal external injury or bleeding, and that redness in the child’s genital area could arise from rubbing, infection, or natural causes. The defence emphasised that the child did not speak in court and offered no testimony incriminating the accused. It was argued that the prosecution failed to establish penetration or assault meeting the statutory threshold for aggravated sexual assault. The appellant urged that the benefit of doubt ought to be extended and that his conviction was unsustainable.
Respondent’s arguments
The State argued that the testimony of the parents was consistent, natural, and trustworthy. The mother had discovered the appellant in compromising proximity to the child, with the child’s clothing displaced and crying in pain. The State submitted that child victims often suffer trauma and may not be capable of narrating their ordeal in court, which explained the victim’s behaviour during testimony. The presence of redness in the private region of the victim, though not amounting to injury, supported the prosecution version. The State contended that all ingredients of aggravated sexual assault on a minor below 12 years were established, leaving no room for doubt.
Analysis of the law
The Supreme Court reiterated that for offences involving sexual assault on a child, the consistent and natural testimony of the parent or guardian can form the basis of conviction if trustworthy. It held that medical evidence serves as corroboration, but its absence cannot override compelling ocular testimony. The law recognises that minor children, especially those as young as four, may be unable to articulate trauma and may react with fear when confronted with the accused in court. The Court reaffirmed that aggravated sexual assault under the statute includes acts that fall short of penetration but involve unlawful sexual contact with a child below twelve.
Precedent analysis
The judgment aligns with long-standing principles in child-sexual-assault jurisprudence:
1. Medical evidence must yield to credible ocular evidence.
Courts have repeatedly held that absence of injuries does not negate sexual assault, especially with very young children.
2. Trauma behaviour as corroborative evidence.
Precedents recognise that fear, silence, or inability to narrate events is not indicative of falsehood but often a symptom of trauma.
3. Statutory protection for minors below 12 years.
Prior rulings emphasise strict liability once sexual contact with a minor is established. This judgment follows that approach, holding that the statutory scheme intends to provide heightened protection.
Court’s reasoning
The Supreme Court found the mother’s testimony consistent, credible, and unshaken in cross-examination. She discovered the appellant beside the child with clothing displaced, and the child immediately expressed pain. The Court held that the victim’s fear in the courtroom, including her inability to look at the accused and repeated crying, was indicative of trauma and corroborated the prosecution narrative. The medical evidence, though lacking external injury, confirmed redness in the private area. The Court held that the combination of parental testimony, medical indication, and conduct of the victim formed an unimpeachable chain establishing guilt. The defence’s attempt to attribute innocence to redness was rejected as speculative.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution successfully established aggravated sexual assault on a child below twelve years. It emphasised that courts must adopt a sensitive approach in cases involving child victims and cannot expect adult-like testimony from a traumatised minor. While confirming guilt, the Court considered that the maximum statutory sentence had been imposed and that the appellant had undergone over four years of custody. In the interests of proportionality and considering mitigating circumstances, the Court reduced the sentence from seven years to six years, retaining the fine and default imprisonment.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the protective purpose of child-sexual-offence law by affirming that credible parental testimony and the child’s emotional response can establish guilt even without injuries or direct eyewitnesses. It underscores the need to interpret medical evidence cautiously and prioritise the lived trauma of child victims. It clarifies that judicial sensitivity is essential when assessing testimony of very young children. Additionally, the decision on sentence reduction illustrates the Court’s willingness to balance statutory minimums with proportionality.
Summary of referred principles
Credibility of parental witnesses
The Court relied on established precedent that trustworthy parental testimony can sustain conviction in child-sexual-assault cases.
Medical evidence subordinate to ocular testimony
Judicial rulings consistently hold that lack of physical injuries does not undermine credible eye-witness accounts, especially for very young victims.
Recognising child trauma in testimony
Courts have earlier affirmed that fear and emotional distress exhibited by a child victim are significant corroborative factors and must be judicially recognised.
FAQs
1. Can a child’s silence or fear in court weaken the prosecution’s case?
No. The Court held that trauma-induced silence often supports, rather than weakens, the prosecution case.
2. Is medical injury required to prove child sexual assault?
No. Even absence of injury does not negate assault if credible ocular evidence exists.
3. Can sentence be reduced in such cases?
Yes, if statutory minimums are met and mitigating circumstances justify limited reduction