Factual Background:

The appellant, who functioned as a pastor, was convicted by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of POCSO cases for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a seventeen-year-old girl with moderate intellectual disability. As per the prosecution case, the victim and her mother visited a church under the management of the appellant’s family. The mother briefly left the child in his care. Upon her return, the appellant was seen leaving the premises and the victim was found in a distressed state with her clothing disturbed. On being questioned, the victim disclosed that the appellant had subjected her to sexual assault. The complaint was lodged after about eight days, which the prosecution attributed to hesitation and apprehension arising from social stigma and trauma. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 5(f) and 5(k) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 92(d) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and imposed a sentence of imprisonment for life.

Court’s Analysis:

Before the High Court, the appellant contended that the delay in lodging the complaint, absence of independent witnesses, absence of visible injuries in the medical evidence, and certain inconsistencies in testimony rendered the prosecution case unreliable. The Court rejected these submissions, holding that delay in reporting sexual offences, particularly involving minors, is not uncommon and must be assessed in the social and psychological context in which such offences are reported. The Court observed that minor inconsistencies do not detract from the core of the prosecution case and that the absence of injuries is not determinative where the testimony of the victim is otherwise found to be credible.

The Court found that the victim’s version was consistent and supported by the testimony of her mother and the surrounding circumstances. The medical evidence, including findings relating to the condition of the hymen, was considered along with the oral evidence. The Court further noted that the victim’s moderate intellectual disability, reflected by an IQ of thirty-six, was sufficient to attract the aggravated provisions under Section 5(k) of the POCSO Act and Section 92(d) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act was held to apply, and the appellant was found not to have discharged the burden of rebutting the presumption.

Order:

The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, finding no legal infirmity or perversity in the appreciation of evidence. The Court reiterated that credible testimony of a vulnerable victim can sustain a conviction notwithstanding delay in reporting or minor discrepancies. It was also noted that the place of occurrence was a church under the management of the appellant’s family, attracting the applicability of Section 5(f) of the POCSO Act.

Conclusion:

The judgment reiterates that in prosecutions under the POCSO Act, courts are required to evaluate evidence with sensitivity to the social and psychological realities faced by minor victims, particularly those with disabilities. Delay in reporting, absence of independent witnesses, or lack of visible injuries are not, by themselves, determinative where the testimony of the victim is found to be reliable.

Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa