Primacy of Victim’s Testimony Over Medical Corroboration in POCSO Cases – Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 INSC 929)

1. Introduction

Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (“Sahu”) is the Supreme Court’s most recent reaffirmation that, in prosecutions for rape and allied offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), the sole, cogent and confidence-inspiring testimony of the prosecutrix can, by itself, ground a conviction. The judgment also clarifies ancillary issues surrounding proof of minority, treatment of minor discrepancies, and the limited role of medical evidence where ocular testimony is trustworthy.

The appellant, convicted by the Special Court and the Chhattisgarh High Court for offences under Sections 376(2) and 450 IPC and Section 4 POCSO, approached the Supreme Court contesting the evidentiary foundation of his conviction. The apex court dismissed the appeal, thereby cementing a set of principles of evidentiary appreciation in sexual-offence trials.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Conviction upheld: The Court refused to interfere with concurrent findings of guilt and the ten-year sentence under Section 376(2) IPC.
• Minor’s age proved: School mark-sheet showing date of birth, corroborated by parental testimony, was held sufficient proof of minority (15 years 5 months).
• Medical evidence not decisive: Absence of external injuries or definitive medical indicators of penetration did not dent the prosecution case.
• Credibility of prosecutrix decisive: Her testimony, supported by her 11-year-old brother and immediate conduct post-incident, was held natural, consistent, and reliable.
• Alleged discrepancies immaterial: Minor variations between witnesses were treated as natural embellishments rather than fatal contradictions.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

Justice N. V. Anjaria anchored the decision on a well-established line of Supreme Court rulings:

1. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 – Recognised that corroboration is not a sine qua non when the prosecutrix’s evidence is credible.
2. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh, (2019) 16 SCC 759 – Emphasised sufficiency of minor’s uncorroborated testimony, unless riddled with improbabilities.
3. Lok Mal @ Loku v. State of U.P., (2025) 4 SCC 470 – Recent reiteration that lack of genital injuries cannot, by itself, exonerate an accused.
4. Wahid Khan v. State of M.P., (2010) 2 SCC 9 – Clarified that even slightest penetration constitutes rape under Section 375 IPC.
5. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550 and Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai, (1983) 3 SCC 217 – Decried the colonial “rule of corroboration” for sexual offences.

These authorities collectively emboldened the Court to rely primarily on the prosecutrix’s oral testimony while brushing aside the perceived weaknesses of medical findings.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

“Credible testimony of the prosecutrix constitutes the linchpin of the prosecution; infirm medical corroboration cannot eclipse it.” — Anjaria J.

The Court’s reasoning followed five sequential inquiries:

1. Proof of Minority: Under Section 94 POCSO, age can be proved by school or municipal documents. The mark-sheet indicating 09-10-2002 as date of birth was deemed admissible and sufficient, especially when parents corroborated it.
2. Credibility of Victim: Her spontaneous disclosure to her cousin, consistency during cross-examination, and convergence with the child-witness brother’s account provided “ring of truth”.
3. Medical Report’s Limited Role: The Court recognised possible lack of injuries when a perpetrator gagged the victim, or if time-lag and washing obliterate traces. It cited earlier precedents to emphasise that medical silence is not medical negation.
4. Assessment of Alleged Contradictions: Variances confined to peripheral details (sequence of phone calls, exact positioning of cot) did not touch the substratum – forced intercourse by the accused.
5. Proportionality of Sentence: Given Section 376(2) mandates a minimum 10-year term, the sentence was not excessive. No mitigating circumstance warranted reduction.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

The ruling, although reiterative, carries significant forward-looking effects:

• Re-affirmation of evidentiary hierarchy: Ocular testimony > medical neutrality, where ocular testimony is coherent.
• Procedural economy: Trial courts can avoid undue emphasis on forensic lacunae when testimonial trustworthiness is established.
• Strengthened victim-centric jurisprudence: Encourages prompt reporting by assuring victims that their sworn statements carry legal weight.
• Age-proof clarity under POCSO: Re-endorses school records as primary evidence; obviates need for ossification tests unless documents are doubtful.
• Guidance for appellate review: Sets a high threshold for appellate interference with concurrent factual findings in sexual-assault cases.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Corroboration Requirement

Unlike accomplice evidence (which requires corroboration by virtue of Section 114(b) Evidence Act), testimony of a rape victim does not. Courts, as a matter of prudence, may look for supporting material if the story seems improbable; otherwise, no legal mandate exists.

Section 376(2) IPC

Aggravated form of rape involving circumstances such as victim being under 16, offender having custody over victim, etc. Minimum imprisonment 10 years.

Section 4 POCSO

Penalises penetrative sexual assault on a child (<18 years). Minimum sentence 7 years, extendable to life.

Evidentiary Value of School Records

Under Section 35 Evidence Act (entries in public or official books), school documents produced by competent authority are admissible to prove age.

Minor Discrepancies Doctrine

Human recollection is imperfect; minor inconsistencies actually cross-check the naturalness of testimony. Only contradictions touching the “core” of prosecution’s version are fatal.

5. Conclusion

fortifies a victim-centric paradigm in Indian criminal jurisprudence by making three emphatic points:

1. The sole credible testimony of a prosecutrix, especially a minor, is adequate to convict for rape and POCSO offences.
2. Medical evidence serves a corroborative, not determinative, function, and its silence cannot subvert a cogent ocular version.
3. Proof of minority can rest on reliable documentary evidence like school records, supplemented by parental affirmation.

In the broader legal fabric, the judgment coherently dovetails with past Supreme Court dicta, thereby closing argumentative loopholes frequently exploited in sexual-offence appeals. Trial courts and investigative agencies now have firmer guidance: focus on obtaining prompt, unvarnished testimonies from victims and corroborative circumstantial details, without being derailed by forensic insufficiencies that are often inevitable in sexual crimes.

— Commentary prepared by the AI Legal Analyst, August 2025