POCSO prosecutions often turn on a single voice — the child's. In Guruthath v. State (Crl.A. No. 1235 of 2022, 2026:MHC:4179, decided 9 October 2026), the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal of a school correspondent convicted of aggravated sexual assault on a ten-year-old student, holding in terms that the sole evidence of the victim was sufficient to convict. The judgment works through, and rejects, the standard appellate arsenal in such cases — delay in the FIR, vagueness, tutoring, absent CCTV footage, downgrading to simple sexual assault, and old age as mitigation — and is a useful map of how these arguments fare against a consistent child witness.
The case
The appellant was the correspondent of a matriculation school at Hosur. On a Sunday in November 2019, a ten-year-old girl attended a Tamil handwriting class on the premises while her father sat in an astrology class in an adjacent room. The prosecution case was that the appellant took the child into a room on the pretext of finding her a book, locked the door, hugged and kissed her and pressed her breast. She told her father at about 10:30 the same morning; the child helpline was contacted and the FIR registered by 4:00 p.m. that day. The Special Court convicted him under Section 342 IPC (one year) and Section 9(m) read with Section 10 POCSO (seven years), sentences concurrent. He appealed.
The defence arguments — and their fate
Rejected: the child reported the incident within the hour and the FIR was registered the same day. There was no delay to explain.
Rejected: the victim’s account was specific and consistent, and the defence’s choice not to cross-examine her on the day she deposed weakened its challenge.
The astrology teacher’s claim that the appellant was away that day did not displace the victim’s direct testimony.
Rejected: merely alleging cameras existed is insufficient; no foundation was laid that relevant footage existed and was suppressed.
Age — of the victim, and of the accused
Two distinct age questions ran through the appeal. The victim’s age was proved at ten through the school certificate and the testimony of the school witness, following the documentary hierarchy in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act as explained in Yuvaprakash v. State of T.N. That finding carried the offence from Section 7 (simple sexual assault) into Section 9(m) (aggravated, child below twelve), with its minimum sentence regime under Section 10.
The appellant’s own age — 61 at the offence, 68 by the appeal — was pressed in mitigation. The Court declined: a man who did not hesitate to assault a ten-year-old could not convert his seniority into leniency. The conviction and the seven-year sentence were confirmed in full, and the trial court was directed to secure the appellant to serve the remainder.
The statutory presumption under Section 29 POCSO also frames such appeals: once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts, the court presumes commission of the offence unless the accused rebuts it. The presumption is not a substitute for proof — the foundational facts must first be credibly established, as they were here through the child’s testimony and prompt reporting — but once engaged, it leaves bare-denial defences with little room.
What practitioners should take from it
For the defence, timing of cross-examination matters. Declining to cross-examine the child witness promptly, then attacking her testimony as vague on appeal, invites an adverse reading. Challenges to a child’s account must be built at trial, with precision and restraint.
Electronic-evidence arguments need foundations. If CCTV is the defence theory, summon the DVR, prove the camera map, and establish what the footage would have covered. An abstract complaint about non-production carries no weight.
Age determination is often the whole case. Whether the victim is under twelve (Section 9(m)) or under eighteen, and how age is proved under the Section 94 JJ Act hierarchy, can swing both conviction and sentence. Scrutinise the certificate trail in every POCSO brief.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a POCSO conviction rest on the child's testimony alone?
Yes, if the testimony is consistent, credible and inspires confidence. Courts treat the child victim as the central witness; corroboration is desirable but not a legal precondition. Here the Court held the victim's sole evidence sufficient, supported by her prompt report to her father and the same-day FIR, with the Section 29 POCSO presumption operating once the foundational facts were proved.
What made the offence "aggravated" sexual assault under Section 9(m)?
Section 9(m) elevates sexual assault to aggravated sexual assault when committed on a child below twelve years. The victim's age — ten, proved through the school certificate and supporting testimony under the Section 94 JJ Act hierarchy applied in Yuvaprakash — foreclosed the defence argument that the act amounted at most to simple sexual assault under Section 7, punishable under Section 8.
Does the prosecution have to produce CCTV footage if cameras existed?
The Court held that merely alleging that CCTV cameras were available is insufficient. Non-production of footage can matter where the defence shows the footage existed, covered the spot and was withheld; a bare suggestion that cameras were around does not dent an otherwise credible account.
Why did wrongful confinement under Section 342 IPC also stand?
Because the appellant locked the door of the room before the assault. The Court found that confining the child to commit the sexual assault satisfied the ingredients of Section 342, and it ran the one-year sentence concurrently with the seven-year POCSO sentence.