No Corroboration Needed if Victim’s Testimony is Credible: HP High Court Upholds Conviction

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, reiterating that the testimony of a child victim of sexual assault, if found credible and trustworthy, does not require corroboration by medical or other evidence, and that minor inconsistencies or absence of physical injuries cannot be grounds to discard such testimony.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, who dismissed the criminal appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, Una.

The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 293 IPC, maintaining the sentence of seven years imprisonment along with fine, holding that the prosecution had successfully established the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court’s appreciation of evidence did not warrant interference.

The case arose from allegations that the accused had sexually assaulted a minor boy in September, 2013.

According to the prosecution, the accused had taken the victim to his house under the pretext of repairing a vehicle, shown him a pornographic clip, and sexually assaulted him.

The incident was later disclosed by the victim to his mother and subsequently reported to the police by his father.

Medical examination of the victim revealed discomfort and pain, though no major external injuries were found, and a pornographic clip was recovered from the accused’s mobile phone.

The trial court had convicted the accused after relying primarily on the testimony of the victim, supported by the statements of his parents and other circumstantial evidence.

It held that the victim’s statement was natural, consistent, and inspired confidence, and that the statutory presumption under the POCSO Act operated against the accused, which he failed to rebut.

Before the High Court, the appellant challenged the conviction on multiple grounds, including alleged delay in lodging the FIR, absence of injuries in medical examination, inconsistencies in witness testimonies and alleged lapses in investigation including discrepancies in sealing of case property and recovery of the mobile phone. It was also argued that the prosecution story was improbable and that the conviction was based on uncorroborated testimony.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court held that delay in reporting sexual offences cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution, particularly where a plausible explanation exists.

The Court noted that the incident was reported the next day, and the victim’s father was not present at the time of occurrence, which adequately explained the delay.

On the issue of medical evidence, the Court reiterated that absence of visible injuries does not negate the occurrence of sexual assault. It relied on medical testimony indicating discomfort during examination and clarified that such findings were consistent with the victim’s account.

The bench further emphasised that corroboration is not a sine qua non in cases of sexual offences, particularly involving minors, where the testimony of the victim carries significant evidentiary weight.

Addressing alleged contradictions, the Court held that minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses, especially when recorded after passage of time, do not affect the core of the prosecution case.

It observed that such inconsistencies are natural and cannot be used to discredit otherwise reliable testimony.

The Court also rejected the argument that the victim’s conduct in not immediately disclosing the incident to others rendered his testimony unreliable, noting that human reactions vary and no uniform standard of behaviour can be imposed.

The High Court further upheld the recovery of the mobile phone and the presence of a pornographic clip as corroborative of the victim’s version.

It noted that the testimony regarding recovery remained unchallenged in cross-examination, and therefore had to be accepted. Similarly, the Court found no merit in the challenge to the integrity of the case property, observing that the prosecution witnesses had consistently deposed that the seized material remained untampered.

On the argument that the victim had improved his version during trial, the Court held that unless contradictions are properly proved in accordance with law, they cannot be relied upon to discredit a witness.

It reiterated that omissions do not automatically amount to contradictions unless they are material and go to the root of the case.

Concluding that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court held that the findings of the trial court were well-reasoned and did not suffer from any perversity or legal infirmity warranting appellate interference.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Case Title: Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla

Date of Judgment: 18.03.2026