Credible victim testimony and corroboration can sustain a POCSO conviction despite FIR delay and no medical examination.
In a POCSO prosecution, the court noted that delay in lodging or forwarding the FIR is not fatal where the complaint's genesis is clear, the victim's account remains consistent, and corroboration is available from surrounding evidence such as a parent's testimony. It also observed that absence of medical examination is not decisive where the allegation concerns sexual harassment at the inception stage rather than penetrative assault. On additional evidence, the court reiterated that Section 391 CrPC is intended to advance justice, not to fill gaps in an existing defence after trial; material available earlier and not put to witnesses will ordinarily not be admitted. A credible victim's testimony can sustain conviction under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
Issues: (i) Whether the delay in lodging and forwarding the FIR, and the absence of medical examination, were fatal to the prosecution case in a POCSO prosecution; (ii) whether additional evidence under Section 391(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be permitted in appeal; (iii) whether the conviction under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether the delay in lodging and forwarding the FIR, and the absence of medical examination, were fatal to the prosecution case in a POCSO prosecution.
Analysis: The victim's version was consistent and was corroborated by her father. The delay was explained by the rural practice of first approaching village elders and by the circumstances in which the complaint was ultimately given. The Court held that delay in transmission of the FIR does not by itself destroy the prosecution case when the genesis of the complaint is not in doubt and the evidence is otherwise trustworthy. The allegation was of sexual harassment at the inception stage, not penetrative assault, and therefore non-examination of the victim medically was not treated as fatal.
Conclusion: The delay and absence of medical examination did not vitiate the prosecution case.
Issue (ii): Whether additional evidence under Section 391(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be permitted in appeal.
Analysis: The documents sought to be introduced were available during trial and were not confronted to the material witnesses when they were examined. The Court held that the power under Section 391(1) is meant to serve the interests of justice, not to repair omissions or fill lacunae in the defence after trial. Since the proposed material had no bearing on the occurrence and would not alter the result, the application was found to be an afterthought.
Conclusion: The request to receive additional evidence was rightly rejected.
Issue (iii): Whether the conviction under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was sustainable.
Analysis: The Court accepted the victim's evidence as cogent, trustworthy, and sufficiently corroborated by her father. It reiterated that conviction can rest on the testimony of a victim or even a single credible witness where the evidence inspires confidence. On the facts found proved, the ingredients of the offence were established beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits, the conviction and sentence were affirmed, and the refusal to admit additional evidence was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A credible and trustworthy victim's testimony, corroborated by surrounding circumstances, can sustain a conviction in a POCSO case, and delay in FIR transmission or belated requests for additional evidence will not defeat the prosecution where the explanation is satisfactory and the defence seeks only to fill lacunae.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
