Single-judge bench upholds conviction under POCSO and IPC, emphasising credibility of child victim’s testimony despite absence of explicit medical opinion on assault.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on 25 February 2026 reinforced legal principles governing evidence in child sexual offence trials, ruling that absence of a medical officer’s explicit opinion on sexual assault does not automatically render prosecution evidence unsustainable. The court dismissed an appeal challenging the conviction of a neighbour who was found guilty of assaulting a minor girl under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case Title & Parties
The case is titled Pradeep Prakash Baiker v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal 728 of 2022). The appellant, was convicted by a trial court on 7 June 2022 for aggravated rape and related offences.
Legal Issues
The legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution’s failure to elicit a clear opinion from the medical officer on the occurrence of sexual assault was fatal to the conviction, especially when the victim did not show overt injuries and there was no corroborative prima facie medical conclusion.
Trial Court Convictions
At trial, the accused was convicted under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC for aggravated sexual assault and under Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution’s case was that on 22 August 2013, the accused, a neighbour of the victim, lured the then-minor girl to his house on the pretext of offering food and sexually assaulted her. The victim reported stomach pain four days later, and her family lodged a complaint the same night.
Appellant’s Contentions
In his appeal, the accused argued that the conviction rested on incomplete evidence because the medical officer who testified did not give an opinion confirming sexual assault nor mention injury on the victim’s person. He contended that in the absence of affirmative medical opinion, the prosecution case was incomplete. He also raised grounds of alleged false implication, pointing to suggested enmity with the victim’s family.
High Court’s Reasoning
Justice Ravindra Joshi, sitting singly, rejected these submissions. The court noted the following key points in its reasoning:
1. Medical Opinion vs. Medical Evidence:
The judge observed that a lack of explicit medical opinion on sexual assault by the doctor does not automatically vitiate the prosecution’s case. A medical opinion, when given, is subjective. The court pointed to a medical certificate indicating redness on the private parts of the victim, and found that it reasonably supported the occurrence of assault in the absence of any other cause for the condition.
2. Credible and Consistent Victim Testimony:
The victim’s testimony was held to be consistent with her earlier statements and supported by the evidence of an independent witness. The court emphasised that in offences against children under the POCSO Act, the testimony of a child victim deserves significant weight if it is reliable and inspires confidence, even if minor discrepancies exist.
3. No Evidence of False Implication:
The court ruled that the appellant’s arguments on false implication lacked substance. Suggesting multiple unrelated reasons for alleged false implication without evidence did not merit interference with the conviction.
4. Corroboration and Overall Evaluation:
While not discounting the value of corroborative evidence, the Bench observed that corroboration is not indispensable where the testimony of the victim and other evidence satisfy the court of the offence. The overall evidence, including victim testimony, independent witness evidence, and medical indicators, was viewed as cumulatively sufficient.
Final Ruling
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The bench found no merit in the appellant’s contentions and refused to disturb the findings of fact.
Practical Implications
The ruling reiterates established judicial principles in POCSO cases:
- Child Victim Testimony: A credible and consistent child victim’s testimony carries substantial evidentiary weight, especially when it aligns with other evidence, even if medical opinion is not definitive.
- Medical Evidence Role: Forcible reliance on a standalone medical officer’s explicit opinion is not mandated if the available medical evidence, such as physical indicators, supports the prosecutorial narrative.
- Corroboration: Corroborative evidence strengthens the case, but absence of certain forensic conclusions does not negate conviction where core facts are established.
This decision aligns with jurisprudence holding that the prosecution need not fail due to technical lacunae in medical testimony when the totality of evidence demonstrates the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment adds clarity on the evidentiary threshold required in POCSO trials, particularly the interplay between medical opinion and the credibility of child testimony in determining guilt.
