Consistent ocular evidence sufficient to uphold POCSO conviction of accused: SC

NEW DELHI: Lending credence to the consistent and credible evidence of the child's (victims) parents, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the conviction of a man found guilty of committing aggravated sexual assault on a four-year-old girl, noting that these factors were sufficient to sustain the conviction despite the lack of medical evidence and eyewitness statement. It is well settled that the medical evidence will take a backseat and even if [it does] not corroborate with the ocular evidence, where the ocular evidence is consistent and cogent, the latter would be allowed to prevail, observed a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria, adding that the trauma-filled behaviour of the victim upon seeing the appellant/petitioner (accused), coupled with her mothers consistent evidence, established the commission of the offence. The top court, while rejecting accused Rajesh Kumar Jaldharis appeal seeking acquittal based on the absence of medical evidence and eyewitness testimony, held that the consistent and credible statements of the childs parents were sufficient to sustain the conviction. The apex court also noted in its 14-page judgment that although Dr Priyanka Toppo (Prosecution Witness-6) did not find external injury marks on the victims body and stated that there was no bleeding of any kind, it still proceeded to uphold Jaldharis conviction, earlier awarded by the trial court and later affirmed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The Supreme Court further stressed that the victims frightened state upon seeing the accused was, in itself, a significant indicator. The whole sequence of events in course of recording of evidence of PW-1 (victim) 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, it stated. While rejecting Jaldharis plea for leniency, the apex court said a vain attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to argue that there was no suggestion of, much less evidence of, penetration in the sexual assault and therefore the conviction and sentence were not justified. The Court is not impressed with this submission, given the facts and evidence on record, it added. Section 7 of the POCSO Act defines sexual assault and Section 8 prescribes the punishment for the said offence, which is imprisonment of either description for a term not less than three years and which may extend to five years, along with a fine. The offence of aggravated sexual assault is defined under Section 9. The punishment for aggravated sexual assault is prescribed under Section 10, which stipulates imprisonment for a term not less than five years and which may extend to seven years, along with a fine. In the present case, the appellant has been convicted under Section 9(m), with the trial court and the High Court having concurrently found that he had committed sexual assault on a child below 12 years, which falls under Section 9 read with Section 10, the Supreme Court noted. The evidence highlighted above go to establish the commission of offence. The appreciation of evidence of the trial court and consideration thereof by the High Court could be said to be eminently legal and proper, warranting no interference by this Court, the Supreme Court said.