No Injury Marks? No Problem: Gauhati HC Upholds POCSO Conviction On Child Victim's Sole Testimony

The Gauhati High Court has dismissed an appeal by a man convicted of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl, holding that the consistent and credible testimony of a child victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, even without corroborating medical evidence or independent eyewitness support.

Justice Mitali Thakuria, pronouncing the judgment, found no reason to interfere with the conviction handed down by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Morigaon, which had in December 2023 sentenced the appellant Md. Mansur Ali, to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, and one year under Section 341 of the IPC for wrongful restraint.

The case dates to January 15, 2017, when the mother of the victim a 12-year-old girl referred to as "Miss X" lodged an FIR at Morigaon Police Station. She alleged that the accused stopped her daughter while she was returning home from a local Madrassa, dragged her near a tree, threw her on the ground, kissed her, opened her undergarment, and attempted to sexually assault her. The victim escaped after spotting a person approaching on the road, and immediately reported the incident to her mother. The accused, declared an absconder during investigation, was arrested only on October 3, 2017.

Before the High Court, counsel for the appellant Mr. D.K. Bhattacharyya argued that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He pointed to the absence of any injury on the victim's body during medical examination conducted within 12 hours of the incident.

He also flagged an inconsistency: the victim's statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC mentioned 6:00 AM as the time of the incident, while the FIR and her court testimony stated 8:00 AM. The defence further argued that the victim's younger sister, who was present at the scene, was never examined, and that three independent witnesses, including one eyewitness (PW-5), turned hostile.

These arguments were countered by Mr. B. Sarma, Additional Public Prosecutor, and Ms. D. Ghosh, Legal Aid Counsel for the informant-respondent. Mr. Sarma submitted that minor contradictions in peripheral details cannot be used to discredit an otherwise reliable account. Ms. Ghosh argued that bodily injuries are not a prerequisite for proving sexual assault, and clarified that Madrassas remain open on Sundays addressing the defence's contention about the improbability of the girls attending Madrassa that day.

The court carefully examined the evidence and found the victim's overall testimony consistent, trustworthy, and worthy of full weight. "The victim can be termed as sterling witness wherein she gave her evidence without any contradiction and was found to be consistent in her statement at every stage," the court recorded. On the timing discrepancy, it held that a single reference to 6:00 AM in the Section 164 statement which the victim herself clarified during trial could not be the sole ground to discard her entire evidence.

On medical evidence, the court rejected the argument that the absence of injury marks was fatal to the prosecution's case. Since the allegation was not of penetrative sexual assault, there was no reason to expect such injuries. The court reiterated that it is a common myth that sexual assault must leave visible physical marks, and a victim's reaction to trauma varies from person to person.

The court also noted that the accused's own defence that he was merely trying to save the victim from falling off her bicycle near a pond inadvertently confirmed his presence at the scene, thereby lending credence to the prosecution's account. The defence's claim of prior enmity was found to be unsubstantiated, with no supporting evidence placed on record beyond bare suggestions during cross-examination.

On the birth certificate, the court found it was issued just two months after the victim's birth in 2005 and was therefore contemporaneous and reliable. It further held that the defence failed to rebut the presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, once the prosecution had established foundational facts.

Dismissing the appeal, the court upheld the conviction and directed the trial court record be sent back with a copy of the judgment.

Case Title: Md. Mansur Ali vs. The State of Assam and Anr.

Date of Judgment: June 26, 2026

Bench: Justice Mitali Thakuria