[POCSO] Cannot expect eye witness or independent witness since culprits exploit child when alone: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court was recently reiterated that that conviction of an accused in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act can be based solely on the evidence or testimony of the victim child if such evidence is cogent, consistent, trust worthy and inspires the confidence of the court. (K Ruban v. State).In cases of this nature, it is unlikely that there would be other witnesses and the case may be such that an older accused tries to take advantage of the child when s/he is alone, Justice P Velmurugan explained. ."In a cases of this nature, we cannot expect any eye witness or independent witness. The culprit will take a chance of the loneliness of the child and will commit the offence by trying to exploit the innocence of age of the children. It is settled proposition of law that when the evidence of prosecutrix is cogent, consistent and trust worthy and inspires confidence of the Court, conviction can be recorded solely based on the evidence of the victim, unless there is a reason to discord or disbelieve the evidence of the sole witness," the Court said. .The judge made the observation while dismissing a criminal appeal challenging a man's conviction under Sections 10 (punishment for aggravated sexual assault of a child) and 12 (punishment for sexual harassment) of the POCSO Act. .The trial court had also ordered ₹2 lakh as compensation for the sexual assault of the then eleven-year old victim child. .The prosecution told the Court that the accused-appellant was a neighbour who had tried to molest the child while she was alone at home. It was the State's case that the accused had twice visited the child in the nude and left when the child protested. It was further alleged that the accused had pulled her hand and showed his private parts to the victim child. .A complaint was lodged after the child narrated the events to her parents. During trial, the accused man asserted that he was elsewhere during the time of the alleged incident. .However, both the trial court and the High Court were unconvinced by this plea of alibi. The courts noted that the accused had not produced any documentary evidence to support his claim that he had travelled to Palani such as trip sheet or entry at a check post. The High Court also noted that the witnesses supporting this plea of alibi were also close to the accused. .Further, since there was no allegation of penetrative sexual assault, the High Court observed that there is no need to show medical evidence of any such injury on the child..While so, the Court was also of the opinion that the child's statements on the issue were consistent and inspired confidence. The High Court, therefore, upheld the trial court's conviction of the accused man. ."In the present case on hand, there is no eye witness except the victim child, who was 11 years at the time of occurrence and she has clearly spoken about the incident and the manner in which the offence committed by the appellant, which is cogent, consistent and trustworthy and this Court does not finds any reason to disbelieve or discord the evidence of the victim child," the Court observed. .Advocate N Manoharan appeared for the appellant. Government advocate S Sugendran appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]