Recently, the Gauhati High Court set aside a conviction under Section 376(3) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, acquitting an accused of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor. The Court emphasized that where the prosecution’s evidence suffers from material contradictions and the medical and investigative support is lacking, “conviction cannot be sustained on unreliable testimony alone,” underscoring the high standard required in sexual offence trials.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from a complaint lodged by the father of a 14 year old girl alleging that the accused had raped his daughter on July 18, 2023, at the accused’s residence near a fishery, with claims of two prior similar incidents. The trial, conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), Morigaon, involved recording the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC, medical examination, and verification of her age through school records. On conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted under Section 376(3) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. The appellant challenged the conviction, raising questions regarding the reliability of the victim’s testimony, absence of corroborating medical evidence, and investigative deficiencies.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The defense argued that the victim’s statements were materially inconsistent, with initial reports merely describing a “bad act” without reference to penetration. Medical evidence failed to corroborate claims of penetration, and the parents’ testimonies were contradictory. The appellant contended that the trial relied on improvements in the victim’s account introduced only during trial, which weakened its evidentiary value. Citing precedents such as Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 11 SCC 334 and Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21, the defense emphasized that sole testimony must be consistent, natural, and free of material contradictions to sustain a conviction, which was absent in this case.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State maintained that the conviction could rest solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, asserting that she had provided detailed accounts of repeated sexual conduct. The prosecution argued that the absence of medical corroboration does not automatically vitiate the case and relied on the statutory recognition of the victim’s statement under the POCSO Act. It was contended that inconsistencies were minor and did not undermine the overall reliability of the evidence, and thus the conviction was justified.
Observations of the Court:
The Gauhati High Court closely examined Sections 3, 5, and 6 of the POCSO Act, particularly the requirement of proving penetration for aggravated sexual assault. The Court observed that the victim initially described only a “bad act,” with detailed allegations of penetration, bleeding, and pain emerging for the first time during trial, constituting material improvements on core allegations. Medical examination revealed an unbroken hymen and absence of injury, directly contradicting claims of repeated penetrative assault.
The Court noted, “Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix only if it is of sterling quality, consistent, and free from material contradictions,” and found that these conditions were not met. Furthermore, parental testimony was inconsistent, and independent witnesses did not corroborate surrounding circumstances. Investigative lapses, including inadequate recording of the “bad act” and failure to provide psychological support to the minor, compounded the doubts. The High Court concluded that the cumulative evidentiary deficiencies rendered the prosecution’s case legally unsustainable.
The decision of the Court:
The Gauhati High Court acquitted the accused, quashing the conviction under Section 376(3) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Court held that in sexual offence cases, especially under the POCSO Act, allegations must be proved beyond reasonable doubt with consistent and corroborated evidence, emphasizing that material contradictions, lack of medical corroboration, and investigative shortcomings can collectively prevent conviction. The operative principle established is that the burden of proof in sexual offence cases is exacting, and justice demands acquittal where evidence falls short of these standards.
Case Title: Md. Shah Alam Vs. The State of Assam, And Anr.
Case No.: CRL.A(J) NO.87 OF 2024
Coram: Hon’ble. Justice Michael Zothankhuma, Hon’ble. Justice Kaushik Goswami
Advocate for the Petitioner: Legal Aid Counsel. B.R.A. Sultana,
Advocate for the Respondent: Sr Counsel Public Prosecutor, B. Bhuyan,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
