Factual Background

The Fast Track Special Court, Cuttack, considered a prosecution under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”), against a private tutor accused of repeatedly committing acts amounting to aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon a minor student during private tuition sessions. The alleged incidents came to light only after the child disclosed the abuse to his parents several months later. Following the complaint, the investigating agency registered an FIR, recorded the statements of the victim and other witnesses, collected documentary and medical evidence, and filed a charge sheet. During trial, the accused denied the allegations, questioned the delay in lodging the FIR, alleged material inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, and claimed that the complaint had been motivated by personal disputes. The Court was therefore called upon to determine whether the prosecution had established the offence beyond reasonable doubt despite the delayed reporting and the absence of independent eyewitnesses.

Court’s Analysis

The Court first determined the age of the victim by relying upon the birth certificate produced during trial and held that the child fell within the protective ambit of the POCSO Act. Referring to settled judicial precedents, the Court reiterated that the testimony of a child victim, if found to be credible and trustworthy, is sufficient to sustain a conviction without requiring independent corroboration. Upon examining the evidence, the Court found that the victim had consistently narrated the material aspects of the incident and had remained steadfast during cross-examination. The inconsistencies highlighted by the defence were held to be minor in nature and insufficient to undermine the credibility of the prosecution case.

With respect to the delay in lodging the FIR, the Court observed that delayed reporting in cases involving child sexual abuse is neither uncommon nor fatal to the prosecution. Considering the circumstances in which the disclosure was made, the Court held that the explanation offered by the prosecution was natural and satisfactory. It also rejected the defence plea of false implication, noting that no evidence had been produced to substantiate the alleged motive. Invoking the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, the Court held that once the prosecution established the foundational facts, the burden shifted to the accused to rebut the presumption, which he failed to discharge.

Order of the Court

The Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for twenty years along with a fine. It further directed payment of victim compensation through the District Legal Services Authority in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions.

Key Takeaway

The judgment reiterates that the credible testimony of a child victim can, by itself, constitute sufficient evidence for conviction under the POCSO Act. It also reinforces that delays in reporting offences against children must be assessed considering the victim’s age, fear, and psychological trauma rather than through rigid evidentiary standards. The decision further highlights the significance of the statutory presumptions contained in Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act in ensuring effective prosecution of offences involving child victims.

Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa