Conviction Based on Victim's Sole Testimony Set Aside if Witness is Not of 'Sterling Quality' Due to Material Discrepancies: Gauhati High Court - 2025-10-11

Gauhati High Court Acquits Man in POCSO Case, Cites 'Material Discrepancies' and Lack of 'Sterling Witness'

Guwahati: In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court has acquitted a man convicted of raping his minor step-daughter, setting aside a 25-year prison sentence. The division bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita held that the prosecution's case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt due to major contradictions in witness testimonies and the victim not meeting the criteria of a "sterling witness" whose uncorroborated testimony could be the sole basis for conviction.

The court emphasized that for a conviction to stand solely on a victim's testimony in a sexual assault case, the testimony must be "absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and is of sterling quality," which it found lacking in this instance.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Ravi Kumar Bhowel, was convicted by the Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (M), under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The trial court sentenced him to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment based on an FIR filed by his own son, Suman Bhowel, on May 4, 2022.

The FIR alleged that the appellant had been raping his 17-year-old step-daughter for the preceding four years. The trial court found the victim's testimony credible and, supported by medical evidence showing old hymenal tears, convicted the appellant.

Arguments on Appeal

The appellant, represented by Advocate S. Borthakur, challenged the conviction on several grounds:

• Impossible Timeline: The core defense argument centered on the timeline. It was contended that the allegation of rape occurring for "the last four years" was factually impossible, as the appellant had married the victim's mother and began living with them only on January 25, 2021—approximately one year and four months before the FIR was filed.
• Property Dispute: The defense alleged that the case was a malicious conspiracy orchestrated by the appellant's son (the informant) to seize his property, highlighting pre-existing family disputes over his second marriage.
• Material Contradictions: The defense pointed to significant improvements and contradictions in the testimonies of the victim (PW-1) and the informant (PW-2) when compared to their initial statements recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
• Failure to Consider Defense Evidence: The appellant argued that the trial court had summarily dismissed the evidence of the defense witnesses, including the appellant himself and his second wife (the victim's mother), without proper reasoning.

The State, represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor Ms. A. Begum, and the Amicus Curiae, Mr. A. Ahmed, argued that the trial court's judgment was sound, the victim's testimony was trustworthy, and any delay in reporting was due to the mother siding with the appellant.

Court's Analysis and Pivotal Findings

The High Court undertook a detailed re-appreciation of the evidence and found several inconsistencies that undermined the prosecution's case.

"When the evidence of the victim can be made the whole basis of convicting the appellant for rape, the same would amount to the learned trial Court being convinced about the truthfulness of the evidence of the victim. In that case, action should have been taken against the mother of the victim also, who had allegedly acted as an abettor..." the Court observed, noting the failure to array the mother as an accused despite the victim's claims of her complicity.

Key findings that led to the acquittal include: 1. Contradictory Timeline: The Court found the "four-year" rape allegation to be a glaring discrepancy. It noted, "it was not possible for the appellant to have been raping the victim for the last four years, as they had not lived together prior to 25/01/2021." 2. Inconsistent Statements by Victim: The victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. claimed her mother married the appellant "eight years ago," which directly contradicted the official marriage certificate and other testimonies. 3. Improvements in Testimony: The Court highlighted the Investigating Officer's (PW-5) cross-examination, which revealed that the victim had not mentioned crucial details in her initial police statement—such as her mother's alleged involvement in the assault or being locked in a room—which she later testified to in court. Citing Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra , the bench deemed such embellished versions as lacking credence. 4. Failure to Consider Defense: The High Court criticized the trial court for failing to adequately consider the appellant's explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and for dismissing the testimony of the defense witnesses as "unreliable" without reasoned analysis, contrary to the principle laid down in Munshi Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar .

The 'Sterling Witness' Principle

Relying on Supreme Court precedents like Rai Sandeep @ Deepu & Another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi , the High Court concluded that the victim did not qualify as a "sterling witness." The numerous inconsistencies, contradictions, and improvements in her statements from the initial stage to the trial failed to inspire the confidence of the Court.

"We are of the view that there being material discrepancies and contradictions, we do not find the victim to be a sterling witness, as we are not convinced with the truthfulness of the victim’s testimony and the same does not inspire the confidence of this Court," the judgment stated.

Final Decision

Concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Gauhati High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence dated November 22, 2023. Ravi Kumar Bhowel was acquitted of all charges under the IPC and the POCSO Act.