Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss. 7 and 8 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012 – r.7(2) – Appellant- accused was tried for the offences punishable u/s. 7 r/w. s. 8 of the POCSO Act – Relying upon the deposition of PW-3 victim, aged 13 years the accused was convicted for the offence u/s. 7 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment u/s. 8 of the Act – The accused was also ordered to pay rupees one lakh to the victim girl, by way of compensation u/r. 7(2) of the Rules, 2012 – Before the High Court, it was noted that there was no representation on behalf of the appellant, therefore, a legal aid counsel was appointed – The legal aid counsel pleaded the inability of the accused person to pay the order of compensation and requested to set aside the order of compensation – The High Court modified the judgment and order passed by the trial Court with respect to compensation to the effect that compensation amount shall be paid by the State to the victim girl and thereafter if the State finds that the accused has got sufficient means, the same can be recovered from the accused under the Revenue Recovery Act – Before the Supreme Court, the appellant-accused contended that the trial Court has committed a grave error in convicting the accused, relying upon the sole testimony of PW-3-victim – It was also emphasised that the appeal was disposed of within the four days from the date of providing legal assistance to the accused and it was very short time for the legal aid counsel to receive the papers from the Registry and inspect original documents – Held: It is required to be noted that there is nothing on record that the legal aid counsel was not having any papers – On persual of the entire judgment of the trial Court, the PW-3-victim has fully supported the case of the prosecution – She has narrated in detail how the incident had taken place and she has been thoroughly cross-examined – Her testimony is reliable and trustworthy – The sole testimony of the PW-3 is unblemished and evidence is of sterling quality – The trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused, relying upon the sole deposition of PW-3-victim – The High Court has rightly convicted the accused for offence u/s. 7 of the POCSO Act and rightly sentenced u/s.8 of the POCSO Act.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case, the appellant-accused has been convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 7, punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. This Court has gone through the entire judgment passed by the trial Court as well as the relevant evidence on record, more particularly the deposition of PW1-father of the victim, PW2-mother of the victim and PW3- victim herself. It is true that PW2-mother of the victim has turned hostile. However, PW3-victim has fully supported the case of the prosecution. She has narrated in detail how the incident has taken place. She has been thoroughly and fully crossexamined. This Court does not see any good reason not to rely upon the deposition of PW3 – victim. PW3 aged 15 years at the time of deposition is a matured one. She is trustworthy and reliable. As per the settled proposition of law, even there can be a conviction based on the sole testimony of the victim, however, she must be found to be reliable and trustworthy. [Para 9][774-F-H]
2. On evaluating the deposition of PW3 – victim on the touchstone of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the opinion that the sole testimony of the PW3 – victim is absolutely trustworthy and unblemished and her evidence is of sterling quality. [Para 9.3][780-C]
3. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused, relying upon the deposition of PW3 – victim. The trial Court has imposed the minimum sentence provided under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the trial Court has already shown the leniency. At this stage, it is required to be noted that allegations against the accused which are proved from the deposition of PW3 are very serious, which cannot be permitted in the civilized society. Therefore, considering the object and purpose of POCSO Act and considering the evidence on record, the High Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act and has rightly sentenced the accused to undergo three years R.I. which is the minimum sentence provided under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. [Para 9.3][780-D-F]
Vijay alias Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010)
8 SCC 191 : [2010] 8 SCR 1150 ; Krishan Kumar
Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130 : [2011]
8 SCR 774 ; Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 : [2012] 6 SCR 1153 – relied on.
Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2020 SC
232 ; Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar (2015) 1 SCC 391 : [2014] 10 SCR 1050 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.