The Allahabad High Court has upheld a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, reinforcing the legal principle that the sole testimony of a child victim is sufficient for conviction if it is credible and inspires confidence. The ruling came as the court dismissed an appeal against a sentence of rigorous life imprisonment for abducting and raping a minor.
Child Victim’s Testimony Deemed Sufficient
Information available with The Chenab Times indicates that the High Court, in its judgment, emphasized that a child victim’s testimony is considered to be on a higher pedestal than that of an ordinary injured witness. The court noted that minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the victim’s account should not be a ground to discard an otherwise trustworthy prosecution version, especially when the offence occurs in seclusion.
The division bench, comprising Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay and Justice Siddhartha Varma, referred to established legal precedents, including pronouncements from the Apex Court. These precedents reiterate that the statement of a prosecutrix, if found to be credible and reliable, does not require independent corroboration. The court found the seven-year-old victim in this case to be a “sterling witness” whose deposition was consistent and fully corroborated by medical and forensic evidence.
Legal Precedents on Victim Testimony
The High Court’s decision aligns with a series of judgments that underscore the evidentiary value of a child victim’s testimony in sexual offense cases. Legal scholars and practitioners have noted that the courts often place significant weight on the victim’s account, recognizing the trauma and potential intimidation a child may face. The Supreme Court has previously held that a child victim’s testimony, if found credible, requires no corroboration and that Section 29 of the POCSO Act creates a statutory presumption of guilt once foundational facts are established.
The court also referred to other Supreme Court rulings, such as State of Rajasthan v. Babu Meena and Hem Raj S/O Moti Ram v. State, which affirm that a conviction can be based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony if it is deemed worthy of credence and reliable. The principle that minor discrepancies should not lead to the discarding of a reliable prosecution story was also highlighted, referencing cases like State of H.P. v. Asha Ram.
Case Background and Evidence
The conviction pertains to an incident where a seven-year-old child was abducted and raped. The trial court had initially convicted the accused under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act, sentencing him to rigorous life imprisonment. The conviction was based on the consistent testimony of the child victim, supported by medical and forensic evidence.
The medical examiner’s report detailed external and internal injuries consistent with sexual assault and aligned with the timeline of the alleged incident, further bolstering the victim’s account. The High Court, after a thorough review of the record and submissions, found no reason to interfere with the trial court’s judgment. The court observed that the victim’s statements remained unwavering throughout the proceedings and were fully corroborated by the scientific evidence presented.
The ruling serves as a reminder of the stringent legal framework in place to protect children and ensure justice for victims of sexual offenses. The emphasis on the credibility of a child victim’s testimony aims to streamline legal processes while safeguarding the rights and dignity of the vulnerable.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
