Child Victim’s Testimony Corroborated By Medical Evidence Sufficient For POCSO Conviction Despite Inconclusive DNA Report: Supreme Court Reduces Sentence From Life To 20 Years

The Supreme Court in the case of suptan marak v. State of Tripura creates a balance between protecting the victim and Pronouncement of Sentence, however, Court has maintained the conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, but lowered his sentence to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, from life imprisonment for the rest of his natural life.

The matter is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Tripura, which upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 342 and 323 of IPC/ 127(2) and 115(2) of BNSS, and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

Background

The prosecution claimed that the victim was a 12-year-old partially and mentally retarded girl. During the trial, the victim consistently supported the prosecution’s case. This was supported by the evidence of her mother and younger sister. There was also medical evidence that established injuries sustained by the girl including torn hymen, bleeding profusely, vomiting and inability of the girl to move.

However, the defense contended that the DNA testing of blood stains collected from the clothes of the victim did not conclusively establish that the appellant committed the offense, thereby raising a reasonable doubt about his guilt.

Court’s Observations

Court has dismissed the defence argument that DNA Evidence presented by him does not prove anything conclusively that’s why it could not supersede ocular and medical evidence. which was found to be reliable. It was observed that the evidence of the child victim was consistent throughout the proceedings and corroborated by other evidence. Therefore, the conviction could not be doubted simply on the ground that the DNA report did not establish conclusively that the appellant committed the offense.

The Bench upheld that it was appropriate to uphold the conviction of the appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

Arguments on Sentence

It was next contended by the appellant that there was an absence of specific reference to Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act on the part of the Trial Court as well as the High Court while awarding the sentence. The absence of this was claimed by the appellant to make the sentence of imprisonment for the rest of his life unsustainable. The appellant also cited factors like his age, lack of prior criminal record and rehabilitability.

The State argued that it was not appropriate to reduce the sentence because the Trial Court as well as the High Court had convicted the appellant of an offence under the POCSO Act.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court dismissed the technical objection relating to Section 4(2) not being mentioned. According to the Court, once it is established that the victim was below 16 years old, it is certain that the relevant provision in the case would be Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act. Hence, no invalidation of conviction and sentence would arise due to the failure to mention the concerned sub-section.

In relation to imposing the sentence, however, the Bench considered the factors of age of the appellant, no prior criminal history, and no negative conduct of the appellant in jail. The Court held that despite conviction being confirmed, the sentence of life imprisonment is the maximum sentence possible under the statute in view of the facts of the case. The Court reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act.

Importance of the Decision

This case strengthens two critical legal tenets. The first is the fact that the testimony of a child who has been the victim of an offence may be adequate for convicting a person, especially when corroborated by other pieces of evidence and even though the DNA profiling is inconclusive. Secondly, the judgment brings out the point that the sentence should always remain proportional taking into consideration the aspect of reform.

Case – Suptan Marak v. State of Tripura (2026)

Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications.

Editorial Note: This article has been reviewed by the LegalRath Editorial Team to ensure legal accuracy, editorial quality, and clarity before publication.