Conviction under POCSO Act Upheld on Minor's 'Sterling' Testimony; Voluntary Drunkenness No Excuse: Gauhati High Court - 2025-10-12

Gauhati High Court Upholds 20-Year Sentence for Father in POCSO Case, Affirms Minor's Testimony as 'Sterling Quality'

Aizawl: The Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction and 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of a man for the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of his own minor daughter, ruling that the victim's testimony was of "sterling quality" and required no further corroboration. A division bench of Justice Marli Vankung and Justice Kaushik Goswami dismissed the appeal, emphatically stating that voluntary drunkenness is not a valid defence for committing a crime.

The court affirmed the judgment of the Fast Track Special Court, Aizawl, which had found the appellant, Vanlalhriata, guilty under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

---

Background of the Case

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) filed on June 8, 2023, by the President of a local women's organization, Mizo Hmeichhe Insuihkhawm Pawl (MHIP). The FIR was lodged after a teacher at the victim's school was informed by the victim's friend that the girl was being sexually assaulted by her father.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant had sexually assaulted his daughter, who was around 10 years old at the time, on approximately four occasions between January and March 2020. The victim had been living alone with her father since her parents' divorce when she was three. Following an investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000.

---

Key Arguments in the High Court

The appellant, represented by an Amicus Curiae, challenged the conviction on several grounds: * Inconsistencies: It was argued that there were inconsistencies in the victim's statements regarding the specific months of the incidents. * Need for Corroboration: The defence claimed that due to these inconsistencies, the victim's testimony was not wholly trustworthy and required independent corroboration. * Defence of Intoxication: A primary argument was that the appellant was heavily drunk during the alleged assaults and had no memory of his actions, and therefore, the offence was not established.

The prosecution, along with the legal aid counsel for the informant, strongly countered these claims: * Consistent Core Testimony: The State argued that the victim had been consistent about the core facts of the sexual assault from the beginning of the investigation to the trial. * Sterling Witness: Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Ganesan Vs. State , the prosecution asserted that the victim’s testimony was credible, unblemished, and of "sterling quality," making it sufficient for a conviction without corroboration. * Voluntary Drunkenness Not a Defence: The legal aid counsel submitted that under Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code, intoxication is only a defence if the intoxicant was administered without the person's knowledge or against their will, a plea the appellant never made.

---

Court's Analysis: Upholding the Victim's Testimony

The High Court meticulously re-evaluated the evidence, focusing on the credibility of the victim's testimony (PW-2). The bench observed that her account was "natural and realistic," and she had "recounted the core spectrum of the alleged sexual assault consistently" throughout the proceedings.

The court held:

"It appears from the victim/PW-2’s testimony that she has recounted the alleged incident of sexual intercourse committed upon her by her father, i.e., the accused/appellant, after being drunk in a very natural and realistic manner. There doesn’t appear to be anything suspicious or unusual as regards the manner in which she has narrated the alleged incident..."

Addressing the appellant's defence of being drunk, the court unequivocally rejected it. It noted the appellant's statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., where he claimed he could not remember the incidents due to intoxication. The court clarified, " Apropos that voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for the commission of a crime. "

The judgment emphasized that minor contradictions regarding the timeline are insignificant when the core allegations are consistent and reliable. The court found that the prosecution had successfully established all ingredients of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Sections 3 and 5 of the POCSO Act, as the victim was under 12 at the time of the offence, the assault was repeated, and the perpetrator was her father.

---

Final Decision and Implications

Finding no legal infirmity in the trial court's order, the High Court concluded that the appeal was "bereft of any merit whatsoever" and dismissed it.

This judgment reinforces the legal principle that the testimony of a child victim in a sexual assault case, if found to be credible and of "sterling quality," can be the sole basis for conviction. It also serves as a stern reminder that using voluntary intoxication as an excuse to escape liability for heinous crimes will not stand legal scrutiny.