Proof of Penetration Essential for POCSO Conviction: Himachal Pradesh HC

Reinforcing the bedrock of criminal jurisprudence, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has affirmed that the lack of credible testimony and failure to medically corroborate sexual penetration mandates the acquittal of the accused, even in sensitive POCSO proceedings. The court emphasized that the standard of proof does not dilute with the severity of the charge, shielding citizens against convictions based on inconsistent hearsay and improbable narratives.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bhupesh Sharma presided over an appeal filed by the State against a Trial Court judgment that had acquitted two individuals charged with penetrative sexual assault under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The State contended that the Trial Court had ignored the consistent testimony of the child victim and set unrealistic standards for evaluating evidence.

Key Takeaways

Corroboration in Sexual Offenses

While a victim's testimony is held at a high pedestal, the High Court reiterated that if such testimony lacks consistency or uniformity on material aspects, it cannot form the sole basis for conviction without further assurance.

Physical Evidence Necessity

The ruling underscores that in cases of 'penetrative sexual assault' under Section 4 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the absence of medical findings such as abrasions, tenderness, or hymenal injury significantly weakens the prosecution's case.

Appellate Restraint in Acquittals

The judgment reaffirms the principle that if two views are possible, the appellate court must not disturb an acquittal unless the lower court's finding is found to be manifestly perverse or unreasonable.

Evaluating Prosecutrix Testimony and Medical Gaps

The High Court carefully examined the evidence of the victim child and her mother. It noted material contradictions regarding whether the accused were known to the family prior to the incident. Crucially, the court observed that the 'aunt' who was allegedly the first person to whom the victim disclosed the incident was never examined, creating a vital gap in the narrative.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The medical evidence brought on record by the prosecution i.e. the MLC of the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ and the opinion given by Dr. Indu do not suggest penetration of finger into the vagina of the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’... Similarly, the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Reports are also inconsequential to ascertain the factum of sexual assault upon the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’."

The Court has the following directions:

"The accused Sohan Singh (A-1) is in custody. He be set free forthwith, if not required, in any other process of law. A copy of this judgment along with the record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith."

Ratio

The powers of the Appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal are not unbridled; if the Trial Court's view is a possible one based on the material on record, it cannot be reversed even if an alternative view exists. Furthermore, in charges of sexual assault, while the prosecutrix is not an accomplice, her testimony must be worthy of credence and reliable to sustain a conviction without corroboration; material omissions and lack of medical evidence regarding penetration render the prosecution version vulnerable and suspicious.

Background

The prosecution alleged that in September 2022, two men entered the victim's house, gagged her, and committed penetrative sexual assault by inserting a finger into her private part. The Trial Court acquitted the accused on October 30, 2024, citing unreliable testimony and a lack of medical corroboration. The State appealed, citing Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor and Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar & another to argue that the victim's testimony should be sufficient.

However, the High Court relied on precedents like Muralidhar alias Gidda & another vs. State of Karnatka ( "(2014) 5 SCC 730": 2014 CaseBase(SC) 95) and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) to emphasize the scope of appellate powers. It also referred to Aman Kumar and another vs. State of Haryana ( "(2004) 4 SCC 379": 2004 CaseBase(SC) 1321) and Tarkeshwar Sahu vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ( "(2006) 8 SCC 560": 2006 CaseBase(SC) 74) regarding the definition of penetration and the necessity of cogent evidence. The High Court ultimately found that the Trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence under the Code of Criminal Procedure and dismissed the appeal, ordering the release of the accused.

Case Details:
Case No.: Cr. Appeal No. : 226 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:45838
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Sohan Singh & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for respondent No.1; Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(HP) 9477