Supreme Court Upholds POCSO Conviction for Sexual Assault on 4-Year-Old—Sentence Reduced from 7 to 6 Years After Considering Circumstances

Case Name: Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 4732 of 2025; 2025 INSC 1317
Date of Judgment/Order: 13 November 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar & Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria

Held: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 9(m) and 10 of the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a 4-year-old child, holding that the consistent and trustworthy testimony of the mother, supported by surrounding circumstances, was sufficient to establish guilt even in the absence of external injuries. The Court held that medical evidence does not override cogent ocular testimony and noted that the child’s extreme fear and inability to depose when confronted with the accused was itself a significant circumstance. However, considering that the maximum seven-year sentence had been imposed and the appellant had already undergone four years and five months of imprisonment, the Court reduced the substantive sentence to six years.

Summary: The incident occurred on 15.08.2021 when the victim’s mother found the appellant—a known neighbour—inside the house wearing only shorts, sitting near the legs of the sleeping 4-year-old child. The child’s underwear was lowered, frock lifted, and she complained of pain in her private parts. The mother and father immediately confronted the accused, who fled. The FIR was promptly lodged, the medical examination recorded redness in the vaginal area, and the victim’s date of birth (13.02.2017) confirmed that she was below 12. During trial, the mother (PW-3) and father (PW-2) gave consistent testimony; the medical officer confirmed the victim’s condition; and the child witness became terrified upon seeing the accused in court, crying and unable to answer—behaviour the Court considered trauma-indicative. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 (aggravated sexual assault on a child below 12 years), and the High Court affirmed. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued absence of injuries and lack of eyewitnesses. The Court rejected these arguments, reiterating that medical evidence is only corroborative and cannot displace credible direct testimony.

Decision: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by affirming the conviction but reducing the sentence from seven years to six years of rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the fine of ₹6,000 and default imprisonment. The Court held that both courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence, that penetration need not be proved for conviction under Section 9(m), and that the minor victim’s behaviour and the mother’s consistent account fully justified sustaining the conviction; all pending applications were disposed of.