Reliable Ocular Evidence and POCSO Convictions: Supreme Court’s Approach

Posted On - 19 December, 2025 • By - Deepika Kumari

Introduction

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”) was enacted to provide a robust legal framework for protecting children from sexual offences. One recurring question in POCSO jurisprudence is whether medical evidence is indispensable for conviction, or whether credible ocular testimony and behavioural indicators can suffice. The Supreme Court has consistently held that ocular evidence, if reliable and cogent, may outweigh the absence of medical corroboration, thereby ensuring that justice is not defeated by technical gaps in forensic proof.

The central legal issue is whether convictions under the POCSO Act can be sustained without medical proof of injury or penetration, particularly when the victim is very young and unable to provide detailed testimony. Courts have clarified that:

  • Medical evidence is corroborative, not substantive.
  • Penetration is not required for aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m).
  • Behavioural evidence (such as trauma, fear, or distress in court) can be probative.
  • Consistent parental testimony may be sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari v. State of Chhattisgarh1, the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction of an appellant who committed an aggravated sexual assault on a four-year-old child under Sections 9(m) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Court reiterated the well-accepted principle that credible and consistent testimony, particularly from primary witnesses like parents in sexual offences against children, may outweigh a lack of medical evidence. In upholding the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence from seven years to six years of rigorous imprisonment.

Judicial Approach

Indian courts have repeatedly emphasized that child witnesses require special care and their inability to narrate events fully does not undermine credibility. The judiciary has adopted a victim‑centric approach, recognizing that:

  • Children may not articulate experiences due to trauma.
  • Parents or guardians often provide the most reliable account.
  • Courts must be sensitive to circumstantial and behavioural evidence.

Key Precedents

  • Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025): The Supreme Court upheld conviction under Sections 9(m) and 10 of the POCSO Act despite no external injuries, relying on consistent parental testimony and the child’s trauma‑induced behaviour.
  • State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996): Though predating POCSO, the Court held that absence of medical evidence does not negate credible testimony in sexual assault cases.
  • Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006): The Court reiterated that minor inconsistencies or lack of medical corroboration cannot overshadow trustworthy eyewitness accounts.
  • Recent POCSO rulings (2023–2025): Courts have consistently reaffirmed that ocular testimony prevails over incomplete forensic reports, ensuring convictions are not derailed by technicalities.

Analysis

The jurisprudence in the recent case of Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) reflects a deliberate shift from over‑reliance on medical evidence to a more holistic evaluation of testimony and circumstances. This approach:

  • Protects victims, especially toddlers, who may not exhibit physical injuries.
  • Prevents acquittals based on technical gaps in forensic examination.
  • Reinforces the principle that the testimony of a truthful witness is substantive evidence in itself.

At the same time, courts remain cautious, requiring that ocular testimony be consistent, credible, and free from material contradictions. The balance ensures that convictions are not based on weak or speculative accounts, but on reliable evidence that withstands scrutiny.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence under the POCSO Act highlights that reliable ocular evidence can sustain convictions even in the absence of medical injuries. This principle is vital in safeguarding child victims, whose trauma may not manifest physically and whose voices may be silenced by fear. The ruling in Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari v. State of Chhattisgarh exemplifies this approach, reaffirming that justice must prioritize credibility and sensitivity over rigid evidentiary formalism.

For practitioners and law readers, the takeaway is clear: medical corroboration strengthens a case, but its absence is not fatal if ocular testimony is trustworthy. This doctrine ensures that the POCSO Act remains a potent instrument in protecting children and delivering justice.

  1. (2025 INSC 1317) ↩︎