Facts
The child survivor was aged 13 years when she was subjected to sexual assault by the accused. The Fast Track Mahila Court convicted the accused under Section 8 POCSO Act. The court awarded three years of rigorous imprisonment and directed to pay one lakh rupees as compensation to the child survivor. The accused appealed his conviction before the High Court but his appeal was partly accepted only with regards to payment of compensation to the child survivor due to his economic background. The High Court modified the trial court order to effect that the compensation will be paid by the state to the child survivor and later the same could be recovered from the accused once he has got sufficient means. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal so far as conviction and imposition of the sentence was concerned. The same was appealed by the accused before the Supreme Court. One of the grounds of appeal raised by the accused was that the PW-2 mother of the survivor had turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Secondly, the accused also submitted that the trial Court erred in relying solely on the testimony of the survivor to convict the accused.
Judgment
The Supreme Court convicted the accused on the basis of the sole testimony of the child survivor, as the court found the testimony to be absolutely trustworthy and unblemished and her evidence was of sterling quality. According to the court a ‘ sterling witness’ would be a witness whose statements are consistent from the starting point till the end. The statements should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. Further the court added that there should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness.The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and under no circumstances should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved , as well as the sequence of it. The court mentioned that though PW-2 , the mother of the survivor turned hostile , the child survivor fully supported the case of the prosecution. The girl narrated the whole incident in detail and was fully cross examined. The court stated that it finds no good reason not to rely on the deposition of the survivor as she was 15 years old at the time of the deposition and hence of matured age.