Court affirms that credible sole testimony of child victim suffices for conviction under POCSO Act despite minor inconsistencies
In a significant ruling delivered on October 13, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided by Justice Madhu Jain, dismissed the appeal filed by Suraj Singh @ Laala, who was convicted for aggravated sexual assault of a six-year-old girl under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused, a neighbor of the victim, was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fined Rs. 5,000, with an additional six months' imprisonment in default of payment.
The prosecution's case stemmed from an incident on April 12, 2020, when the minor victim alleged that the accused kissed her on the lips and subjected her to inappropriate physical contact including squeezing her stomach below the breast area. She promptly disclosed the incident to her mother, who in turn informed the father and the police. The accused was arrested after he reportedly attempted self-harm.
During the trial, the victim's testimony was the cornerstone of the prosecution case. Although her statements contained minor discrepancies regarding the exact body part touched and the precise place of occurrence, the Court held these inconsistencies to be immaterial given the victim's tender age and consistent core allegations. The victim's immediate disclosure and corroboration by the parents' testimony further reinforced her credibility.
The defense contended that the prosecution evidence was flawed due to lack of eyewitnesses, medical or forensic corroboration, and alleged inconsistencies in the victim's testimony as well as potential motive arising from a prior quarrel between the accused and the victim's father over parking issues. They also highlighted the disowning of the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The defense witness corroborated the existence of a quarrel but denied any knowledge of the sexual assault.
Rejecting these arguments, the Court emphasized that the POCSO Act permits conviction based solely on the testimony of a child victim if it inspires confidence and is found reliable. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents affirming the competence of child witnesses and the absence of any proven tutoring or coaching in this case. It also clarified that the act of kissing a minor child on the lips with sexual intent falls within the ambit of "any other act with sexual intent involving physical contact without penetration" under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, even if the touching of private parts was excluded.
Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that the accused, being a neighbor and a trusted person in the victim's environment, was liable for aggravated sexual assault under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Minor contradictions in the place of occurrence and procedural lapses during investigation did not detract from the overall credibility of the victim's testimony.
This judgment reaffirms the legal principles that minor inconsistencies should not discredit the prosecution's core case in sexual offences involving children and underscores the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding children's rights by upholding convictions based on credible child witness testimony.
Bottom Line:
POCSO Act - Conviction for aggravated sexual assault can be sustained on the sole testimony of a child victim if it is credible and confidence-inspiring - Minor inconsistencies regarding exact body part touched or place of occurrence are not material where core allegation that accused kissed minor on lips and subjected her to inappropriate physical contact remains consistent - Even if touching of private part is excluded, kissing lips of minor child with sexual intent falls within "any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration" under Section 7 POCSO Act.
Statutory provision(s):
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sections 7, 9(n), 10, 29; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 354, 363
Suraj Singh @ Laala v. State NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2996347
