Gauhati High Court Acquits Man Convicted Under POCSO Act, Flags Inconsistent Testimony

The Gauhati High Court has set aside the conviction of a man sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of aggravated penetrative sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court reiterated that while conviction in sexual offence cases can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, such testimony must be consistent, reliable, and of sterling quality, particularly when medical evidence does not corroborate the allegation and the earliest versions of the incident are vague or materially inconsistent.

A Division Bench of Justices Michael Zothankhuma and Kaushik Goswami, while allowing the criminal appeal, observed, “The essential ingredients of Section 6 of the POCSO Act are not established on the evidence on record, and no case under the said provision is made out against the accused.”

The Bench set aside the judgment and order dated 07.06.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Morigaon, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and directed that he be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

The appeal arose from a conviction under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, by which the appellant had been sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000.

The prosecution case was that on 18.07.2023, the appellant had taken his minor cousin, aged about 14 years, to his house situated near a fishery behind their residence and committed rape upon her.

An FIR was lodged by the victim’s father, following which the police investigated the matter, recorded statements of witnesses, conducted medical examination, and submitted a charge sheet.

During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses including the victim, her parents, the investigating officer, and the medical officer.

Before the High Court, the appellant contended that the medical evidence completely ruled out penetrative sexual assault and that the victim’s testimony suffered from material inconsistencies and improvements. It was argued that in her earliest statements before the police and in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before a Judicial Magistrate, the victim merely alleged that a “bad act” had been committed, without any disclosure of penetration or sexual intercourse.

According to the appellant, the detailed allegations of repeated penetration, bleeding, and pain emerged only during the victim’s deposition at trial, amounting to material improvements on foundational facts.

The State, however, argued that the victim had clearly described the sexual act before the trial court and that absence of medical corroboration was not fatal.

After carefully examining the record, the High Court noted that in both the FIR and the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC, the allegation was confined to a “bad act” and holding of hand.

The Court observed that despite being repeatedly asked by the Magistrate to clarify what she meant by “bad act,” the victim did not elaborate and stated that her father would know. The omission of the core ingredient of penetration in the earliest judicial statement was held to be significant and went to the root of the prosecution case.

The Bench found that the subsequent version given during trial, which included allegations of repeated penetrative sexual assault, bleeding, and pain, constituted a substantial improvement.

Relying on settled Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that material improvements on core aspects of the prosecution case seriously weaken the evidentiary value of testimony. While acknowledging that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the Court emphasised that such testimony must be natural, consistent, and inspire confidence.

The Court further noted inconsistencies in the evidence of the victim’s parents. While the father claimed to have seen the accused adjusting his pants and the victim scratching her thigh, this fact was not disclosed to the police during investigation.

The mother spoke of threats being issued to the victim, whereas the victim stated that threats were made to kill her parents. These contradictions were found to weaken corroboration.

Significant reliance was also placed on medical evidence. The medical officer who examined the victim stated that her hymen was intact and that there was no evidence of any injury or recent sexual intercourse.

The Court observed that although medical evidence is not always decisive in sexual offence cases, it assumes importance where ocular testimony itself is doubtful. The Bench also noted that despite the victim claiming to have shouted during the incident, no independent witness from nearby houses, including an aunt residing barely 50-60 metres away, heard any cries or distress calls.

Considering these circumstances cumulatively, the High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from vague earliest disclosures, material inconsistencies, lack of medical corroboration, and improbabilities. The Bench reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof and that if two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must be adopted.

The Court further held that the evidence on record did not establish the commission of any lesser offence either, as the foundational facts necessary for such conviction were absent.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were quashed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The Court also discharged the bail bonds.

Before parting with the matter, the High Court expressed serious concern over the quality of investigation in the case.

It noted that despite the victim repeatedly using the expression “bad act” in her earliest statements, there was no indication that psychological counselling or a support person was provided to enable her to articulate the allegation in a child-friendly environment, as contemplated under the POCSO framework.

The Court observed that failure to adopt child-friendly procedures not only prejudices the accused but may also lead to failure of justice for the child.

The Bench also flagged procedural lapses including failure to clarify foundational facts at the earliest stage and even the presence of a wrong case diary in the trial court record.

Stressing the need for proper training and sensitisation of investigating agencies in POCSO cases, the Court observed that defective investigation may result in acquittals even where an offence might have occurred, thereby defeating the object of the law.

Case Title: Md. Shah Alam v. State of Assam & Anr.

Bench: Justices Michael Zothankhuma and Kaushik Goswami

Date of Judgment: 04.02.2026