LexStreak
Read free →
Supreme Court of India· 17 September 2026

Can the sole evidence of a prosecutrix prove the offence unless she is a sterling witness?

DEEPAK IN JC v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI
2026 INSC 1008
Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra · Justice N.V. Anjaria
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.29 Protection of Children from…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

The sole evidence of a prosecutrix can prove the offence only if she is a sterling witness of unassailable version.

No. Sole evidence can prove the offence only if the witness is of sterling quality, whose version is unassailable and consistent from the starting point, when the initial statement is made, till the end before the court, and has co-relation with the scientific evidence and expert opinion. Here the mother's evidence, with material improvements over her first account and contradictory to the medical and FSL evidence, could not be treated as that of a sterling witness.

Headnote

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — ss.29, 30 — Statutory Presumption — Reverse Burden — Preponderance Of Probability — Sterling Witness — Acquittal — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — ss.29, 30 — Presumption Rebuttable, Not Absolute — Held: The presumptions in Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act are not absolute and operate only once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts. Courts must still weigh the evidence with the usual principles. (¶7) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s.29 — Standard Of Proof — Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Held further: Even with a reverse burden, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, while the accused rebuts on a preponderance of probability, including by showing gaps and mismatch of ocular and medical evidence. (¶7) Evidence — Sole Testimony Of Prosecutrix — Sterling Witness — Consistency From Initial Statement — Held further: Sole evidence can prove the offence only if the witness is sterling, consistent from the initial statement to the court and matching the scientific evidence. Appeals allowed; appellant acquitted. (¶5, 10)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 5Now, the prosecution evidence in this case, more particularly about accounting for and narrating the alleged incident is comprised of the testimony of mother of the victim-complainant (PW-5), uncle (chacha) of the victim or brother-in-law (devar) of the complainant (PW-6A) and Dr. Rajesh Parthasarthy (PW-1) who was the private doctor to whom the victim was stated to have been taken for the first time after the occurrence of alleged incident.
Acts & Sections
s.29 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s.30 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s.6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s.363 Indian Penal Code, 1860

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of DEEPAK IN JC v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Is the Section 29 presumption under the POCSO Act absolute, even before foundational facts are established?Must an accused rebut a presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act beyond reasonable doubt?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections