Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1415
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, ANJAN MONI KALITA, JJ.
Ravi Kumar Bhowel S/O - Late Pauni Bhusan Bhowel – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Anr –Respondent
Crl.A./158 of 2024
Decided on : 25-09-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Sexual Offences
Act Referred
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT: S.42, S.6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.161, S.164, S.313, S.313(1)(b), S.313(4)
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for raping his step-daughter for four years; however, inconsistencies in evidence raised doubts about the timeline of events leading to the FIR filed by the victim's brother. (Paras 2, 4, 18)
Findings of Court:
The trial court failed to consider defence evidence and discrepancies in the victim's statement leading to reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt. (Paras 39-46)
Issues: The main issues were the credibility of the victim's testimony, consideration of defence evidence, and the timeline of alleged offenses. (Paras 39, 46)
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the need for the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and emphasized that contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of the victim resulted in the acquittal of the appellant. (Paras 51)
Result: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted from charges under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
For the Appellant :MR. T DEURI, MR. A R HAZARIKA,MR S BORTHAKUR,MR N MILI,MR. R CHETRI Mr. S. Borthakur, Advocate
For the Respondents:PP, ASSAM, MR. A AHMED, AMICUS CURIAE, R2 Ms. A. Begum, Addl. P.P., Assam Mr. A. Ahmed, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction and case background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of allegations and fir. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. trial court findings and defense arguments. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. defense arguments regarding evidence credibility. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court observations on prosecution's evidence. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 6. details of victim's testimony. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. medical evidence and its implications. (Para 24 , 28) |
| 8. testimonies of defense witnesses and credibility. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 9. marriage context and timeline discrepancies. (Para 36 , 37) |
| 10. legal standards regarding victim testimony. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 44) |
| 11. final judgment and implications. (Para 51 , 52 , 53) |
JUDGMENT :
M. Zothankhuma, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, appearing for the State and Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent no. 2.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2023, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup(M), Guwahati, in Sessions Special Case No.46/2022, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant was thereafter sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 25 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, in terms of Section 42 of the POCSO Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant (PW-2), who is also the son of the accused appellant, submitted an FIR dated 04.05.2022, to the O/c of the All Woman Police Station, Panbazar, Guwahati, stating that his father, who had married another woman having 3 children, had raped one of them, who was 17 years old, for the last 4 years. However, the victim could not tell anyone and she had recently told him about the same, as it had become unbearable. In pursuance to the FIR, All Woman P.S. Case No.30/2022 under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act was registered.
4. After investigation of the case was completed and the victim had been examined by a medical Doctor, a charge-sheet was submitted, wherein a prima facie case under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act had been found established against the appellant for raping his step daughter. Charge under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 6 prosecution witnesses (PWs) and 2 defence witnesses (DWs), consisting of the appellant (DW-1) and his second wife (DW-2). After examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the appellant had raped his minor step daughter, who was 17 years of age and as such, he was convicted Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
6. The appeal has been filed by the appellant, on the ground that the learned Trial Court has not considered the evidence of the defence witnesses and has instead brushed aside the evidence given by the defence witnesses.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Munshi Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 351, the evidence of the defence witnesses are entitled to equal respect and treatment as that of the prosecution witnesses and that the evidence tendered by them cannot always be termed to be a tainted one.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in the examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the explanation given by the appellant with regard to the year from which the victim started living with the appellant, clearly belied the evidence of the prosecution and PW-2, which was to the effect that rape had been committed
