Kerala High Court Upholds POCSO Act Conviction Despite Non-Seizure Of Mobile Used To Show Sexually Explicit Videos To Child

Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in an appeal challenging conviction under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, including a charge under Section 11(iii) relating to showing pornographic material to a child.

The prosecution alleged that the accused sexually assaulted a nine-year-old neighbour on multiple occasions in 2021 while the child's mother was hospitalised for delivery. According to the prosecution, the accused took the child to a room in his house, showed her obscene videos on his mobile phone, sexually assaulted her and threatened her with harm if she disclosed the incidents.

The Trial Court convicted the accused under multiple provisions of the POCSO Act and imposed concurrent sentences, including 20 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 read with Sections 5(l) and 5(m).

The appellant contended that the prosecution failed to establish the offence under Section 11(iii) of the POCSO Act because investigators had neither seized the mobile phone allegedly used to show pornographic videos nor produced supporting electronic evidence.

The Court thus examined whether a conviction under Section 11(iii) of the POCSO Act, which criminalises showing pornographic material to a child, can be sustained solely on the basis of the child victim's testimony without seizure or forensic examination of the device allegedly used.

Section 11(iii) states that a person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent show any object to a child in any form or media for pornographic purposes.

The appellant argued that the absence of corroborative digital evidence weakened the prosecution case and rendered the conviction unsustainable.

The Court observed that although the prosecution had not seized the device or adduced further electronic evidence, the defence had failed to effectively challenge the victim's account during cross-examination.

“In this case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, the evidence of PW1 alone is available to prove the prosecution allegations and no attempt made by the prosecution to go for further evidence by taking custody of the mobile phone etc. However, no challenge raised during cross-examination of PW1 on this point. Therefore, this contention also is liable to fail.” Court held.

The Court held that the victim's testimony was sufficient to prove the charge. The Court noted that the child had consistently described the accused showing pornographic videos on a mobile phone before committing sexual acts. 

The Court reiterated that a child victim's evidence need not be discarded merely because corroboration is unavailable, particularly in sexual offences where direct evidence is often confined to the victim's account.

The Court thus dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

Case Title: Vishnu @ Unni v State of Kerala

Case No: Crl. A 2268/ 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 268

Counsel for Appellant: S. Dheerendrakumar

Counsel for Respondent: Vipin Narayan. A

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment