POCSO appeals often turn on a single question: does the child’s testimony hold at its core? In Mrinmoy Halder v. State of West Bengal, CRA No. 594 of 2019, decided on 24 September 2026, the Calcutta High Court answered yes — affirming conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(i) and 506 IPC, while modifying the sentence from fifteen years to thirteen years and six months in view of long pre-trial custody and jail conduct. The judgment is a working map of how appellate courts apply the Section 29 presumption, treat delayed reporting, and weigh medical corroboration.
The case
The victim, an eleven-year-old girl, alleged repeated penetrative assaults in December 2015 by a man who was in a relationship with her mother and frequented their home — a person squarely within the aggravated categories of the POCSO Act. The complaint was lodged in March 2016. Medical examination found evidence consistent with prior penetration; forensic testing detected no semen. The trial court convicted under Section 6 POCSO and Sections 376(2)(i) and 506(II) IPC. On appeal, Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Anuj Singh affirmed the conviction.
The appellate method, step by step
Sentence and compensation: the two dials
| Dial | What the court did | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Sentence | Reduced from 15 years to 13 years 6 months RI | Above the statutory minimum, appellate courts may calibrate for pre-trial custody and jail conduct without diluting deterrence. |
| Victim compensation | Enhanced to Rs 4,50,000 | Compensation under Section 33(8) POCSO and the victim compensation framework is an independent judicial duty, not an afterthought. |
For the defence, the judgment marks the boundaries of a contradictions-based appeal: unless cross-examination dents the core — identity, act, opportunity — an appellate court will not disturb the verdict, and energy is better invested in sentencing and mitigation material. For prosecutors and victim counsel, it underscores the value of promptly recorded Section 164 statements and careful proof of age and relationship, which together arm the Section 29 presumption.
Relevance to Delhi practice
Delhi’s POCSO courts apply the same grammar daily: child testimony assessed for core consistency, presumptions engaged on foundational proof, and compensation addressed at judgment. Appeals to the Delhi High Court succeed when they identify genuine central contradictions or foundational gaps — age proof and identification remain the two most litigated — and fail when they inventory peripheral discrepancies, as this Calcutta appeal did.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Section 29 presumption and when does it arise?
Section 29 of the POCSO Act presumes commission of the offence once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts — the victim’s minority, the occurrence, and the accused’s involvement — shifting an evidential burden to the accused. The Division Bench found those foundations laid here, so the presumption operated alongside the direct testimony.
Why did contradictions in the child’s evidence not matter?
Because they concerned peripheral details — sequence, surrounding circumstances — not the identity of the offender or the nature of the assault. The court described the testimony as of "sterling quality" at its core. Appellate courts distinguish embellishment at the margins from inconsistency at the centre.
The complaint came nearly three months after the incidents. Was that fatal?
No. Delay in reporting child sexual abuse is assessed with realism: fear induced by threats — here, threats to harm the victim’s brother — family dynamics and a child’s dependence on adults explain delay. The court found the explanation reasonable, consistent with the settled approach.
Why was the sentence reduced and compensation increased?
The court affirmed guilt but moderated the sentence to thirteen years and six months, citing lengthy pre-trial custody and satisfactory conduct — a reminder that appellate courts retain sentencing discretion above the statutory minimum. Simultaneously it enhanced victim compensation to Rs 4,50,000, reflecting the twin focus of POCSO appeals: accountability and reparation.