Unshaken Testimony in POCSO Cases: SC Ruling on Medical Evidence Limits

In a significant decision pronounced on November 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of India has affirmed a conviction for rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, based squarely on the strength of victim testimony, despite a complete lack of corroborating medical evidence.

The bench, while upholding the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, laid down a crucial marker for sexual assault jurisprudence. The Court held that in cases involving child sexual abuse, a "credible testimonial chain" that remains "unshaken" during cross-examination is sufficient on its own to warrant a conviction.

This judgment frontally addresses one of the most persistent challenges in POCSO trials: the weaponization of negative medical reports by the defence. By reinforcing the primacy of credible ocular evidence—testimony from an eyewitness, in this case, the child victim and her parents—the apex court has strengthened the evidentiary framework protecting child survivors.

The 'Unshaken' Testimony as Evidentiary Bedrock

The central pillar of the Supreme Court's November 14 ruling is its interpretation of what constitutes an "unshaken" testimony. In the lexicon of criminal law, a testimony is not considered "shaken" merely because of minor discrepancies or inconsistencies, which are often natural by-products of trauma and the passage of time.

Instead, a testimony is deemed "unshaken" when its core narrative—the corpus delicti, or the fundamental facts of the crime—remains consistent and credible despite rigorous cross-examination.

In the case at hand, the Court observed that the child victim's account of the assault, supported by the deposition of her parents to whom she had made the disclosure, formed a consistent and believable chain of events. The defence was unable to create any significant doubt or elicit contradictions that would damage the root of this core allegation.

This judicial approach aligns with established principles that the evidence of a child witness must be evaluated with care, but not with automatic suspicion. The SupremeCourt has previously established that the testimony of a child, if found to be reliable, truthful, and uninfluenced, can be the sole basis for a conviction. This latest judgment builds on that foundation, clarifying that this principle holds true even when a medical report, or lack thereof, appears to contradict the verbal account.

Reconciling with the 'Medical Evidence' Conundrum

The most critical aspect of this judgment is its nuanced handling of medical evidence. In sexual assault cases, the defence often heavily relies on the absence of physical injuries or forensic proof (like semen) to argue for acquittal. A negative medical report is frequently presented as definitive proof that the alleged incident never occurred.

The Supreme Court’s ruling effectively dismantles this fallacious line of reasoning. The Court implicitly acknowledges several realities of child sexual assault:

1. Delay in Reporting: A significant delay between the assault and the medical examination is common. This delay, often caused by fear, grooming by the perpetrator, family shame, or a lack of understanding, almost guarantees that any superficial physical evidence will have dissipated.

2. Nature of the Assault: Not all forms of sexual assault under the wide definition of the POCSO Act (which includes acts like fondling or digital penetration) will result in physical injuries that can be documented by a medical professional.

3. The 'Absence of Evidence' Fallacy: The Court’s decision reinforces the legal maxim that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." A negative medical report proves only one thing: that at the time of the examination, no physical injuries or forensic traces were found. It does not, and cannot, prove that the assault itself did not happen.

By holding that an "unshaken" testimonial chain outweighs a negative report, the Court is directing trial courts to move beyond a formulaic check-box approach to evidence. It prioritizes the substantive evaluation of the victim's credibility over the technical absence of corroboration.

A Substantive Reading of Evidentiary Law

This judgment is not a deviation from Indian evidence law but a strong reaffirmation of its core principles. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, mandates that evidence must be weighed, not counted. There is no legal rule stating that a specific number of witnesses, or a specific type of evidence (like medical proof), is required to prove a fact.

A single, credible witness is sufficient. The POCSO Act, being a special law, further strengthens this position. Section 29 of the Act introduces a presumption of guilt for certain offences, placing the burden on the accused to prove their innocence once the prosecution has established the foundational facts.

This judgment harmonizes these two legal frameworks. The "unshaken" testimony of the victim and her parents establishes the foundational facts, thereby activating the POCSO Act's built-in presumptions. The lack of medical evidence, in this context, becomes insufficient for the accused to discharge their burden of proof.