High Court affirms conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on minor, holds lone victim's testimony can suffice

A single-judge bench of Justice G. Arul Murugan heard Criminal Appeal No. 374 of 2022 challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, in Special S.C. No.7 of 2017. The appeal contested the trial court's finding that the accused, a blood relative, committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor and was sentenced under Section 6 of the (POCSO Act).

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine. The court held that the prosecution had proved the foundational facts — that the victim was a minor and that she was subjected to repeated sexual intercourse by the accused — and that the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the (POCSO Act) stood unrebutted. The Court noted that "the testimony of the victim is reliable, trustworthy and inspires the confidence of this court" and relied on settled precedent that the solitary testimony of a prosecutrix could suffice if it was worthy of credence. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "From the above, it is clear that in the cases involving sexual assault, the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient and the conviction would be justified and permissible if the testimony is found reliable and trustworthy with sterling quality. Further minor contradictions and insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix shall not be a ground to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case." The judgment also cited the Supreme Court's observation that where the perpetrator occupies a position of trust the crime "assumes a demonic character" and that "When a father who is expected to be a shield... becomes the source of the most severe violation of a child's bodily integrity and dignity, the betrayal is not only personal but institutional."

Background

The prosecution case alleged that the victim, a girl born on 17.03.2002 and aged 14 at the time of occurrence, was repeatedly sexually assaulted by the appellant — her cousin — beginning when she was in 9th standard and continuing into 10th standard while she was staying with her grandmother in the village. The accused's house adjoined the grandmother's house; when the accused's house was under construction they stayed together and the assaults were said to have occurred on multiple occasions. The victim lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P2). The FIR was registered as Crime No.7 of 2016 after investigation, and the police altered initial sections to frame charges under Section 5(n)(l) r/w 6 of the (POCSO Act) and 506(i) IPC; conviction was recorded under Section 6 of (POCSO Act).

Medical examination produced an Accident Register (Ex.P8) and medical opinion (Ex.P10) which recorded that there was no external injury, the hymen was not intact and the vagina admitted only one finger; the doctor conceded that hymenal disruption could possibly be due to non-sexual causes such as bicycle riding but accepted that the victim had been subjected to sexual intercourse. Independent witness PW4 corroborated that he found the victim in a forest area in school uniform and informed her parents; other witnesses included school records (Ex.P4, Ex.P5) establishing age. The accused was examined and found medically capable of sexual activity (Ex.P11).

Defence counsel argued inordinate delay in lodging FIR, contradictions in the victim's account (including an initial statement of kidnapping by four persons), absence of corroborative testimony from some village witnesses and that medical evidence did not establish rape. The State relied on the victim's testimony, corroborative evidence and the statutory presumption under Section 29 (POCSO,) submitting that once foundational facts were proved the accused bore the burden to rebut.

The High Court analysed authorities including State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, Ganesan v. State, Krishan Kumar Malik, Rai Sandeep and recent Supreme Court dicta on incestuous sexual violence, and held that minor contradictions did not vitiate the prosecution case. The court found the victim's evidence to be consistent with her complaint and Section 164 statement; it rejected the defence contention that delay or enmity warranted acquittal. On reappraisal of evidence the court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court's findings and dismissed the appeal, directing the trial court to secure the accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

Case Details:
Case No.: Crl.A.No.374 of 2022
NeutralCitation: 2026:MHC:1031
Case Title: P. Prakash v. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Pennagaram All Women Police Station, Dharmapuri District
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. C.P. Sivamohan
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. Kishore Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 110