Testimony Lacking 'Sterling Quality' Cannot Sustain POCSO Conviction: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has underscored that a conviction for sexual assault cannot stand on the sole testimony of a minor victim if it fails the test of 'sterling quality' and is riddled with material contradictions. Ruling that foundational facts must be proven beyond doubt before statutory presumptions of guilt can apply, the Court acquitted a man previously sentenced to life for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray set aside the conviction of the appellant, emphasizing that while corroboration is not a mathematical necessity in sexual offence cases, the victim's deposition must be unassailable and inspire absolute confidence to serve as the solitary basis for punishment.

Key Takeaways

Threshold of Sterling Witness

To convict an accused based on a single witness, the testimony must be of high calibre, consistent from the initial statement to the trial, and withstand rigorous cross-examination without prevarication.

Foundational Facts and Presumptions

Statutory presumptions under Section 29 of the POCSO Act do not trigger automatically; the prosecution must first establish foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt through reliable evidence.

Impact of Procedural Lapses

Failure by a Trial Judge to certify the competency of a minor witness before recording evidence, combined with inconclusive medical data, significantly weakens the prosecution's case.

Relevance of Prior Animosity

Evidence of long-standing legal disputes and enmity between the families of the victim and the accused necessitates extreme caution in relying on uncorroborated oral testimony.

Judicial Scrutiny of Victim’s Testimony

The Court meticulously analyzed the discrepancies between the victim's oral evidence and her previous statements. It observed that significant variations existed regarding the place of occurrence, the sequence of events, and her whereabouts on the day of the incident. The Bench noted that the victim's testimony before the Trial Court was substantially different from her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C..

The Court has the following directions:

"The judgment and order of conviction dated 18.03.2025 and 19.03.2025 passed by learned Judge Special (POCSO) Court, Barasat... is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all charges labelled against him. He be released at once. The Trial Court Records shall be sent back to the learned Trial Court immediately, along with a copy of this judgment."

Inconclusive Medical Evidence and Procedural Irregularities

Evaluating the medical findings, the Court found the prosecution's case lacking. The medical report indicated an intact hymen and absence of injuries on the pelvic region or back, which the Court deemed inconsistent with a struggle or the act of being pinned to the ground in an orchard. Furthermore, the Bench expressed concern that the Trial Judge proceeded without certifying the minor's competency to depose.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "As this Bench has already noted that the victim’s evidence is full of anomalies and blemishes, it suffers from serious untrustworthiness and, the other evidence on record have also failed to clarify those anomalies and therefore, the prosecution evidence cannot be relied upon."

Ratio

A conviction in a sexual assault case can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix only if it is of 'sterling quality' meaning it is unblemished, trustworthy, and consistent. If the testimony is found to be unreliable or inconsistent with prior statements, and is not supported by conclusive medical evidence, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused, especially where a history of prior animosity exists.

Background

The appellant was convicted by the Special (POCSO) Court at Barasat on March 18, 2019, for allegedly raping a 9-year-old girl in February 2017. The prosecution alleged the accused lured the child on the pretext of tying a goat. However, the appellant challenged the conviction in the High Court, citing procedural irregularities and a lack of 'sterling' quality in the victim's evidence.

The defense highlighted that there was a three-day delay in filing the FIR and that the families were involved in prior litigation, suggesting a motive for false implication. Referring to Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana ( "(2011) 7 SCC 130": 2011 CaseBase(SC) 175) and Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) ( "(2012) 8 SCC 21": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 82), the defense argued that a solitary witness must be of high calibre. The State, relying on State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Manga Singh ( "AIR ONLINE 2018 SC 1019": 2018 CaseBase(SC) 377), Raju @ Umakant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ( "2025 INSC 615": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 711), and Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State, argued that an intact hymen does not disprove penetration and that the testimony of a child victim should be prioritized. After reviewing the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 and existing precedents, the High Court concluded that the foundational facts remained unproven, leading to the acquittal.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRA (DB) 196 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:1514-DB
Case Title: Arun Das Vs. The State of West Bengal
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kaushik Saha, Adv.; Ms. Barna Samanta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharyya, Ld. A.P.P.; Ms. Tanusree Kar, Adv.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CAL) 2567