Cannot Expect Any Eye Witness Or Independent Witness As Culprits Assault Children When Alone: Madras HC Upholds Conviction Of POCSO Accused

The Madras High Court has recently reiterated that an accused can be convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act solely based on the testimony of the victim child if such evidence is 'cogent, consistent, trust worthy and inspires the confidence' of the Court.

Justice P Velmurugan observed,

"In a cases of this nature, we cannot expect any eye witness or independent witness. The culprit will take a chance of the loneliness of the child and will commit the offence by trying to exploit the innocence of age of the children. It is settled proposition of law that when the evidence of prosecutrix is cogent, consistent and trust worthy and inspires confidence of the Court, conviction can be recorded solely based on the evidence of the victim, unless there is a reason to discord or disbelieve the evidence of the sole witness"

The Court made the observing while dismissing a criminal appeal challenging a man's conviction under Sections 10 (punishment for aggravated sexual assault of a child) and 12 (punishment for sexual harassment) of the POCSO Act. In the instant case, the trial court had ordered Rs 2 lakh compensation for the sexual assault of the eleven-year old victim child.

The prosecution had submitted that the accused was a neighbour who had tried to molest the victim child while she was alone at home. It had been further alleged that the accused had pulled her hand and showed his private parts to the victim child. A complaint had been lodged after the child narrated the events to her parents.

During trial, the accused had contended that he was elsewhere during the time of the alleged incident. However, the Court refused to accept such a contention in the absence of any documentary evidence.

Rejecting the plea of alibi, the Court observed,

"But, it is seen that the appellant has failed to produce any valid documentary proof to prove his defence. Even though he has stated that on 23.05.2019 he went to Palani and on 25.05.2019 only he returned to Valparai, the appellant has failed to produce any valid trip sheet or any entry in Check Post, located between Valparai and Palani. Therefore, if at all the appellant/accused was not in Valparai at the relevant point of time, he should have produced any valid documentary proof to sustain his defence, since he took a specific defence of plea of alibi and he failed to do the same. Therefore, the defence of plea of alibi taken by the appellant/accused is not acceptable, since the same is not proved in the manner known to law."

Furthermore, since there was no allegation of penetrative sexual assault, the Court observed that there was no requirement to show medical evidence of any such injury on the child.

Accordingly the Court upheld the trial court's order of conviction by observing that the child's testimony was consistent and inspired confidence.

"In the present case on hand, there is no eye witness except the victim child, who was 11 years at the time of occurrence and she has clearly spoken about the incident and the manner in which the offence committed by the appellant, which is cogent, consistent and trustworthy and this Court does not finds any reason to disbelieve or discord the evidence of the victim child," the Court further remarked.

Case Title: K Ruban v. State

Click Here To Read/Download Order