Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N. V. Anjaria upheld the conviction of a man for aggravated sexual assault on a four-year-old child, rejecting his plea for acquittal based on the absence of medical evidence and eyewitness testimony, holding that the consistent and credible evidence of the child’s parents was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court addressed allegations that the appellant assaulted the child inside her home, as reported immediately by the parents and followed by medical examination. While affirming the conviction under the POCSO Act, the Bench modified the sentence to six years of rigorous imprisonment and retained the fine and default sentence.

The case arose from an incident dated 15.08.2021, when the mother of a four-year-old child entered her house and found the appellant wearing only half shorts and sitting near the legs of the child, who was asleep. The child’s underwear was lowered to her knees, her frock was raised, and she cried in pain, stating that she felt pain in her private part. The mother also noticed wetness in the child’s private area. An FIR was lodged the same day under relevant IPC and POCSO provisions. The child underwent medical examination, her statement was recorded, and her birth certificate confirmed her age to be between four and five years. A chargesheet was filed for the offences alleged.

Also Read: Supreme Court Dismisses Tenant’s Appeal In Wilful Default Eviction Case; “mere filing of an appeal does not by itself operate as a stay” As No Stay Was Obtained Against Fair Rent Order

During trial, the parents testified that the appellant had earlier accompanied the father to the forest to collect coal wood and had consumed liquor at their house. The mother stated that when she entered the house at about 4:30 p.m., she saw the appellant near the child in the condition described, and that he fled when questioned. Medical examination recorded redness in the child’s vaginal area.

The appellant argued that no eyewitnesses supported the prosecution case and no external injuries or bleeding were found, asserting that the redness could have resulted from infection or rubbing. He sought benefit of doubt.

The State submitted that the parents’ consistent and detailed narration established the incident, supported by the child’s behaviour during proceedings. Provisions considered included Sections 7, 8, 9(m), and 10 of the POCSO Act relating to sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault of a child below twelve years.

The Court recorded that the parents offered a clear and consistent account of events, noting that “there is no good reason not to disbelieve the details revealed and the narration given about the incident by PW-3 - mother of the victim.”

Regarding the medical findings, the Court observed: “It may be true that Dr. Priyanka Toppo (PW-6) did not find external injury marks on the victim’s body and stated that there was no bleeding of any kind… It is well settled that the medical evidence will take a backseat and even if do not corroborate with the ocular evidence, where the ocular evidence is consistent and cogent, the later would be allowed to prevail.”

It also noted that redness in the vaginal area was recorded. The judgment reproduced the trial court’s detailed description of the victim’s behaviour during testimony: “Witness was shown the Accused present in the Court… after getting his mask removed… Witness stated that yes… and started getting frightened and did not look at the Accused.”

Further attempts to record testimony were unsuccessful as recorded: “Victim was called again for evidence with her mother, Victim is not giving any answers and is crying… Hence, Examination of the Witness is closed on this point.”

The Court Observed:  “the fact that the victim was in a frightened state upon seeing the accused is a pointer in itself. The whole sequence of events in course of recording of evidence of PW-1, was tale-telling. The shock related to the happening of the incident which continued with the victim post-incident made its statement in the trauma-filled behaviour of the victim who was a 4 year-old girl.”

Discussing statutory provisions, the Court stated that “Section 7 of the POCSO Act defines sexual assault and Section 8 is the punishment for the said offence.” It held that the case fell within Section 9(m) read with Section 10, as the child was below twelve years.

Also Read: Delhi High Court : Cancellation Of Registered Conveyances Lies Exclusively With Civil Courts Despite SARFAESI Proceedings Before DRT

Addressing the argument on penetration, the Court recorded: “A vain attempt was made… that there was no suggestion of, much less evidence of penetration… The Court is not impressed with this submission.” It concluded that “the evidence highlighted above go to establish the commission of offence.”

The Court directed “The conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court is resultantly upheld. The Court is inclined to reduce the sentence requiring the appellant to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for 6 years, instead. The imposition of fine of Rs. 6000/- and the simple imprisonment of one year in default of payment of fine would stand. The judgment and order of the High Court is modified to above limited extent by substituting the sentence as above. The appeal is partly allowed to the said extent.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Ms. Varnika Gupta, Adv. (Arguing counsel) Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR Ms. Srishti Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Karanvir Gogia, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Singhal, Adv. Mrs. Indira M (marla Batta), Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Ankita Sharma, Advocate

Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari v. State of Chhattisgarh
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1317
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4732 of 2025
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice N. V. Anjaria