Ganesan v. State Rep. by its Inspector of Police
Background
The appellant was convicted by a trial court under the POCSO Act for an offence against a 13-year-old girl (a student in 5th standard), based primarily on her testimony, and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment plus a compensation order. The High Court largely upheld the conviction on appeal, only modifying the compensation arrangement, though the appellant's Legal Aid counsel had argued only four days after being appointed and addressed just the compensation issue, not the merits of the conviction. The appellant challenged his conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing he was denied a fair opportunity to be heard on merits and that the victim's mother having turned hostile as a witness undermined the case against him.
Decision Breakdown
Rather than sending the case back to the High Court over the fairness-of-hearing issue, the Supreme Court itself heard full arguments from both sides on the merits. It held that a conviction can validly rest on the sole testimony of a child victim in a sexual offence case, provided that testimony is reliable, trustworthy, and of "sterling quality", tested against established standards from the Court's own precedent, and found the victim's detailed, consistent, and well cross-examined account met that standard, even though her mother had turned hostile. The Court held the trial court and High Court had correctly convicted the appellant, that the minimum three-year sentence was in fact already lenient, and upheld the High Court's modified compensation arrangement (requiring the State to pay the victim first and recover from the accused only if he had means). The appeal was dismissed.
Lesson Learnt
In sexual offence cases, including those involving children, a conviction can be sustained on the victim's testimony alone if it is found to be reliable, consistent, and withstands cross-examination: corroboration from other witnesses, even family members, is not legally required.