Appeals against POCSO convictions often rest on a familiar trio: contradictions in the child's account, inconclusive medical evidence and a defective investigation. On 17 September 2026, a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh rejected all three in Bambam Mukhiya @ Govind Mukhiya v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1390 of 2018, affirming the conviction and life sentence of a neighbour accused of the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of an eight-year-old child.
The case
The prosecution alleged that in the intervening night of 1–2 May 2017, the appellant — a neighbour — entered the home of an eight-year-old child at about 3:00 a.m., sexually assaulted her and fled when her aunt arrived. Medical examination revealed genital injuries consistent with penetrative assault, including a torn hymen and active bleeding. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code — rape of a child below twelve years — and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The appeal to the High Court followed.
The defence attack and the Bench's answer
"The medical evidence is inconclusive"
The Bench found the opposite: the examination established recent penetrative genital injury. It added that the absence of spermatozoa does not negate rape, because penetration alone constitutes the offence.
"Identification at 3:00 a.m. is unreliable"
The appellant was a neighbour known to the child, not a stranger; recognition, not identification, was in issue. The child named him consistently from the first report onwards.
"The witnesses contradict each other"
The court held that peripheral contradictions are not material, and that trauma-induced variations in a child's recollection of collateral details are natural rather than suspicious.
"The investigation was defective"
A defective investigation does not vitiate a trial founded on reliable substantive evidence. The child's testimony and the medical record stood independently of the investigating officer's lapses.
The consistency test
What carried the conviction was the stability of the child's core narrative across three stages: the initial report, the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate, and the testimony at trial. The Bench treated that consistency — on the identity of the assailant, the place, the time and the nature of the act — as the touchstone of credibility. It reiterated that the testimony of a prosecutrix, "if found credible, consistent and trustworthy, is sufficient to base a conviction" without mandatory corroboration, while noting that in this case corroboration in fact existed in the medical evidence.
Why the judgment matters
For appellate practice in POCSO matters, the decision illustrates where the real battleground lies. Arguments aimed at the periphery — minor discrepancies, investigative lapses, the absence of forensic material that the law does not require — rarely move an appellate court where the central account is steady. A defence that hopes to succeed on appeal must engage the substratum of the prosecution case: demonstrate that the core narrative itself shifted between statements, that the medical evidence is inconsistent with the allegation rather than merely incomplete, or that the circumstances made the account improbable. Conversely, for the prosecution, the case underlines the importance of promptly recording the child's statement and preserving the medical record, since these are the anchors an appellate court will test years later.
Under the current criminal codes in force since 1 July 2024, the corresponding rape provisions appear in Section 65 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and statements formerly recorded under Section 164 CrPC are now recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Trials arising from FIRs registered before that date, like this one, continue under the IPC and CrPC.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a POCSO conviction rest on the child victim's testimony alone?
Yes. The Patna High Court reiterated the settled position that the testimony of a prosecutrix, if found credible, consistent and trustworthy, is sufficient to base a conviction without mandatory corroboration. What courts examine is whether the core narrative — the who, where and what of the assault — holds steady across the initial report, the statement recorded before the Magistrate and the testimony in court.
Do contradictions in a child witness's evidence defeat the prosecution?
Not if they are peripheral. The Bench held that variations natural to a traumatised child's recollection — timing details, sequence of arrivals, collateral facts — are not material contradictions. Only discrepancies that strike at the substratum of the prosecution case, such as the identity of the assailant or the fact of the assault itself, can undermine a conviction.
Does the absence of spermatozoa in the medical report negate rape?
No. Penetration alone constitutes the offence of rape under the IPC, and penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act is defined in similar terms. Where the medical examination records recent genital injury consistent with penetrative assault, the absence of spermatozoa does not weaken the prosecution case.
What is the effect of a defective investigation on a POCSO trial?
Lapses by the investigating officer do not by themselves vitiate a trial. Courts separate the reliability of the substantive evidence — the victim's testimony and the medical findings — from the quality of the investigation, and will not allow the prosecution's case to fail for faults attributable to the police rather than the witnesses.