Summary
The Court affirmed a POCSO sexual-assault conviction on the child victim’s sole testimony, found trustworthy and of sterling quality despite her mother turning hostile. Rather than remand over the short interval between legal-aid appointment and appellate disposal, the Court heard the merits itself, considering the record and sentence already served. State-paid compensation, recoverable from the accused only if he had sufficient means, was maintained.
Issues
- Whether the victim’s sole testimony could sustain conviction despite her mother’s hostile evidence.
- Whether the circumstances of legal-aid representation required remand.
- Whether the compensation arrangement prejudiced the accused claiming poverty.
Provisions considered
- Sections 7 and 8, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012Maintained the sexual-assault conviction and three years’ rigorous imprisonment, the minimum sentence under Section 8. (¶¶ 3, 9, 9.3)
Held
- A reliable and trustworthy victim’s testimony can sustain conviction without corroboration. On scrutiny of the evidence and cross-examination, this victim’s account was of sterling quality; the mother’s hostility did not displace it. (¶¶ 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3)
- Meaningful legal assistance is required, but the record did not establish that legal-aid counsel lacked the papers. Considering the partial relief already granted and approximately two years and three months served out of three years, the Court heard both sides on merits instead of remanding. (¶¶ 8.1, 11)
- Three years’ rigorous imprisonment was already the statutory minimum. The High Court’s direction for the State to pay compensation protected the victim while making recovery from the accused conditional on sufficient means, addressing his asserted poverty. (¶¶ 9.3, 10)
Result
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and three years’ rigorous imprisonment affirmed; Rs.1,00,000 compensation payable by the State, with recovery from the accused conditional on sufficient means, maintained.