Ensuring Reliability of Child Witness Testimony in POCSO Trials: Medical Evidence and ‘Sterling Quality’ Standard

Introduction

In Promud Yadav v. The State of Assam & Anr. (2025 Gauhati High Court, Crl.A./303/2023), the Gauhati High Court reviewed an appeal against conviction under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”). The appellant, Promud Yadav, was sentenced by the Special Judge (POCSO) for seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine, on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of a seven-year-old victim. The key issues on appeal were:

Whether a conviction based solely on a child’s testimony—contradicted by medical evidence—meets the “sterling quality” threshold;
Whether the trial court’s failure to consider defence evidence and Section 313 CrPC answers vitiated the fairness of the trial;
Whether the shifting charges and framing under different POCSO sections prejudiced the accused’s right to a fair trial.

Parties: Appellant: Promud Yadav, convicted under Section 10, POCSO Act.
Respondents: State of Assam (through Additional Public Prosecutor) and the victim’s father (through Amicus Curiae).

Summary of the Judgment

Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside conviction under Section 10, POCSO Act. The Court held that:

The sole testimony of the child victim was contradicted by medical evidence: no hymenal rupture, no genital injury, no spermatozoa detected.
Once the child’s account was shown to be unreliable or exaggerated, it failed to satisfy the “sterling quality” test required for uncorroborated child-witness convictions.
The trial court’s assumption of an “aggravated sexual assault” (Section 6 POCSO) without record evidence was impermissible.
Failure to consider the appellant’s Section 313 CrPC plea and the defence witness evidence vitiated the trial process.

The High Court emphasized that, in POCSO cases, medical evidence and the defence’s version must be weighed before accepting a child’s uncorroborated evidence. On this combined appraisal, the benefit of doubt went to the appellant.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam (2018 13 SCR 1108): Courts must expressly consider and accept or reject the defence version set out under Section 313 CrPC, giving reasons in writing.
Ganesan v. State (2020 10 SCC 573): Uncorroborated testimony of a child must be of “sterling quality” to ground conviction; any major inconsistencies or contradictions with medical evidence undermine reliability.
Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka (2001 9 SCC 129): Child-witness evidence deserves careful scrutiny; conviction on sole testimony is safe only when it inspires complete confidence.
Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam (1998 8 SCC 635): Ocular evidence, even if contradictory to medical evidence, may be relied upon, but only if inherently trustworthy.

2. Legal Reasoning

a. Sterling Quality Test: The Court reaffirmed that in POCSO trials, conviction on the sole deposition of a minor requires the statement to be unimpeachable and fully consistent with other material (medical reports, forensic evidence). Here, the medical officer (PW-7) found no hymenal tear, no injury, and no semen—facts fundamentally at odds with the victim’s claim of a one-hour rape.

b. Presumption & Substantive Proof: Though POCSO Sections 29–30 allow presumption of culpable sexual assault once the foundational facts (penetration, age) are established, the High Court held that the foundational facts themselves must be satisfactorily proved. Contradictory medical findings negate the presumption’s trigger.

c. Charge-Framing Irregularities: The appeal record showed charges originally under Section 8 POCSO, later framed under Section 4, then finally conviction under Section 10. The Court held that such tinkering with the offence description prejudices the accused’s defence, violating fair-trial norms.

d. Consideration of Defence Case: In line with Reena Hazarika, the trial court’s failure to address the appellant’s Section 313 CrPC answers and defence witnesses’ testimony rendered the conviction unsustainable.

3. Impact

This decision clarifies that:

High standards of reliability apply before convicting on child testimony alone—medical and forensic evidence must align.
Trial courts must carefully record and reason upon defence pleas and Section 313 CrPC answers.
Any charge alteration mid-trial that affects the accused’s right to anticipate the case against him is impermissible.

Going forward, Gauhati High Court—and potentially other benches—will require a more rigorous convergence of ocular and medical evidence in POCSO cases before a lone child witness can ground conviction.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Sterling Quality: A judicial benchmark meaning “of highest reliability.” Uncorroborated evidence is admissible only if it is so consistent and credible that it leaves no room for reasonable doubt.
Section 29 & 30 POCSO: Create a rebuttable presumption of sexual assault once the prosecution proves penetration and the victim’s age. But the presumption arises only after foundational facts are firmly established by reliable evidence.
Section 313 CrPC: Allows the accused to explain or deny incriminating material; courts must record these answers and explicitly accept or reject them, with reasons.

Conclusion

Promud Yadav v. State of Assam reaffirms that convictions under POCSO cannot rest on shaky or contradictory testimony. When a child’s account of penetrative assault conflicts with clear medical findings, the “sterling quality” threshold fails, and benefit of doubt must follow. The judgment also underscores the necessity for trial courts to consider and give reasons on defence pleas under Section 313 CrPC and to maintain charge-consistency throughout the process. This ruling will guide future POCSO prosecutions to ensure that both child-victim protection and accused’s fair-trial rights are meticulously balanced.