Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Pintus Dung Dung Sivasagar, Assam. – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam – Respondent
Crl.A(J) 107 of 2019
Decided on : 04-10-2024
Criminal - Sexual Offences - IPC 376(2)(i), POCSO Act 4 - The court interpreted the provisions of IPC and POCSO Act, emphasizing the credibility of the victim's testimony and the presumption of guilt against the accused in cases involving minors.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for raping a minor girl, with the prosecution alleging that he induced her to his house and committed the act. The victim's parents reported the incident after noticing injuries on her.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the victim's testimony credible despite the absence of medical evidence supporting recent assault, emphasizing that the sole testimony of a minor can suffice for conviction if it inspires confidence.
Issues: Whether the conviction was justified based on the victim's testimony and the absence of corroborative medical evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the testimony of a minor victim is sufficient for conviction in sexual assault cases, and the absence of physical evidence does not negate the victim's account if it is credible.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
Key Points: - The court held that the testimony of a minor victim can be sufficient for conviction in sexual assault cases if it inspires confidence, even in the absence of corroborative medical evidence. (!) (!) - Conviction can be based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix if the victim is a minor and her testimony is found credible and reliable, with no requirement of corroboration from medical evidence. (!) (!) - The presumption and burden under Section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act were discussed, including that the prosecution must prove foundational facts by preponderance of probability and the accused may rebut presumptions; the appellate court upheld the conviction under IPC 376(2)(i) read with POCSO Act. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The medical evidence showing no recent injuries does not automatically disbelieve the victim’s testimony; courts may weigh ocular testimony against medical findings, with guidance from precedents about conflicts between medical and ocular evidence. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court reaffirmed that a child witness is competent under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, and tutoring concerns do not automatically render their testimony incredible; credibility depends on the totality of circumstances. (!) (!) - The judgment remanded that the accused’s conviction for penetrative sexual assault of a minor (aged 6-7) and the sentence under IPC 376(2)(i) with POCSO provisions stands upheld. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This jail appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred against the judgment & order dated 27.11.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge, Charaideo, Sonari in Special (P) Case No. 47/2017, under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, whereby the accused/ appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 (two) months for the offence under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.09.2017, one Shri Prahlad Teli lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer-In-Charge of Sapekhati Police Station alleging that on the previous day, i.e. on 23.09.2017, at around 3.30 p.m., the accused-Pintus Dungdung induced his minor daughter to go with him to play with his granddaughter and thereafter raped her inside his house. Upon receipt of the said F.I.R., the Officer-In-Charge, Sapekhati Police Station registered a case, being Sapekhati P.S. Case No. 84/2017, under Section 4 of POCSO Act, and started investigation.
4. During investigation, the I.O. visited the place of occurrence, drawn the sketch map, recorded the statement of the witnesses available at the place of occurrence and forwarded the victim for her medical examination and also collected the MLC report. The victim was also produced before the Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The accused was also arrested and forwarded for judicial custody.
5. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, the I.O. laid Charge-Sheet against the present accused/appellant under Section 4 of POCSO Act, vide Charge-Sheet No. 46/2017, dated 30.10.2017, before the Court of learned Special Judge, Charaideo, Sonari. Accordingly, learned Special Judge, after considering the materials available on record and also finding prima facie case, framed charge against the present accused/appellant under the aforesaid Section. The charges were read over and explained to the accused/appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the trial of the case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) numbers of witnesses including the informant, victim, Doctor and Investigating Officer. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge, Charaideo, Sonari, after hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials available on records, vide judgment & order 27.11.2018, in Special (P) Case No. 47/2017, convicted the accused/appellant under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him, as aforesaid.
7. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned judgment & order dated 27.11.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge, Charaideo, Sonari in Special (P) Case No. 47/2017, under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant from jail.
8. Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned Special Judge did not consider the evidence on record in its true perspective and thus arrived at a wrong decision convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. He further submitted that the false case is lodged against the present accused/appellant only due to previous grudge as he did not allow the informant to sell liquor from his house. More so, he submitted that the medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution and in the same time, the independent witnesses also did not support the pr
The court established that a minor's testimony can be sufficient for conviction in sexual assault cases, even without corroborative medical evidence, if it is credible.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the critical appreciation of the victim's testimony in a sexual assault case, the burden of proof on the accused to establish the absence of culpab....
The court affirmed that the victim's consistent testimony suffices for conviction in sexual assault cases, reinforcing that age determination and credibility of the witness are pivotal in such judgme....
The court confirms that the credible testimony of a child victim can sustain a conviction in sexual assault cases without needing corroboration, highlighting the reliability of the victim's account d....
The testimony of a child victim in sexual assault cases is sufficient for conviction if credible, highlighting the high standard of reliability required under the POCSO Act.
The sole testimony of a child victim can suffice for conviction if credible, and age determination must rely on conclusive evidence such as school records.
The victim's testimony in sexual assault cases is vital and can suffice for conviction without corroboration, provided it is credible.
The court established that in cases of sexual assault, the victim's testimony can be sufficient for conviction, and that slight penetration constitutes an offense under the POCSO Act, regardless of t....
Prosecution must establish essential elements of charges beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of corroboration lead to acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
