Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 598

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
Anjan Moni Kalita, J.
Shri Babul Das, S/o Late Khagen Das - Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam, represented by the Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 257 of 2022
Decided On : 15-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. D. Barua
For the Respondent: Mr. R. J. Baruah, Addl. P.P., Mr. U. Choudhury, LAC

In sexual assault cases, the victim's testimony is vital and can form the sole basis for conviction if it inspires confidence. Corroboration is not a strict legal requirement, and minor discrepancies in testimony do not invalidate the prosecution's case unless they are fatal to its credibility.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 8 - Indian Penal Code - Section 354A - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 161, 164, 313 and 374 - Sexual assault on minor - Conviction based on victim testimony - Whether corroboration is mandatory - Held, testimony of victim in sexual assault cases is vital and can form the sole basis for conviction if it inspires confidence - Corroboration is not a rule of law but a matter of prudence - Minor discrepancies in testimony do not warrant rejection of evidence unless they are fatal to the prosecution case. (Paras 30, 31, 36)

(B) Evidence - Appreciation of - Appellate court - Scope of interference - Appellate court should not interfere with the trial court's findings unless the decision is perverse or illegal - Minor variations in narration of incident do not render evidence unbelievable. (Paras 35, 36)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for sexual assault on a minor. The prosecution alleged that the appellant lured the victim to his residence under the pretext of retrieving a construction tool and subsequently touched her inappropriately. The defense contended that the prosecution failed to examine key witnesses and that there were contradictions in the testimonies. The trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment.

Findings of Court:
The court found the victim's testimony to be consistent and reliable. It held that the absence of corroboration does not invalidate the conviction, as the victim's account was credible and not motivated by malice. The defense failed to demonstrate any reason for the victim to falsely implicate the appellant.

Issues: Whether the conviction could be sustained solely on the victim's testimony and whether the alleged discrepancies in witness statements were sufficient to discredit the prosecution's case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases is entitled to great weight and can be the sole basis for conviction if it inspires confidence. Minor discrepancies in testimony, which do not touch the core of the case, do not justify discarding the entire evidence.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history, establishment of pocso charges, and victim age verification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. appreciation of eyewitness testimony and police investigation logs. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. assessment of defence witness reliability. (Para 19 , 20)
4. contentions regarding evidence credibility and quantum of sentence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. corroboration requirements and credibility of the victim's testimony in sexual offence cases. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 34 , 37 , 38)
6. judicial precedent on evaluating sexual assault evidence and handling minor discrepancies. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 36)
7. conclusion of liability under pocso act and final dismissal of appeal. (Para 39 , 40 , 41)

JUDGMENT :

A.M. Kalita, J.

Heard Mr. D. Barua, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. J. Barua, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State of Assam as well as Mr. U. Choudhury, learned Legal Aid Counsel, representing the respondent no. 2.

2. The instant appeal, filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2022, passed by Additional Sessions cum Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar in Case No. Special (POCSO) 01/2021, arising out of Namti P.S. Case No. 27/2020, convicting the appellant/accused under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act) and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3(three) months.

3. The prosecution’s case is that an FIR dated 24.12.2020, lodged by one Brojen Gogoi (the respondent no. 2) before the Officer Incharge of Namti Police Station, Sivasagar, alleging, inter alia, that their 13 years’ old daughter (Ms. ‘X’, name not disclosed) had been lured by the appellant to go to his house without their knowledge; that on not seeing her for long, they asked their mason who was working in the entrance gate of their house, wherein they were told by him that the appellant had taken away their daughter to get a ‘tegari’; that the victim girl could be seen coming crying and on being asked, she told them that the appellant had behaved indecently with her. It was also alleged in the FIR that the victim girl, on earlier occasions also told them that the appellant used to give her bad signal but they brushed those aside thinking that he must had been joking.

4. In view of the aforesaid FIR, Namti P.S. Case No. 27/2020, under Section 354 A of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act was registered.

5. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against the appellant under Section 354A of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. On 18.02.2021, charge was framed against the appellant under Section 354A of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution examined as many as six (6) witnesses, including the Investigating Officer (I/O). The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Two (2) witnesses were adduced on behalf of the defence. The defence plea was of denial. After hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar, vide Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2022, convicted the appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (5) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) months.

7. It is seen that there was no dispute regarding the age of the victim girl. The victim girl deposed in the Court that her date of birth is 28.11.2006. The father of the victim girl, the respondent no. 2, produced and exhibited the Birth Certificate of the victim girl as Exhibit-2, wherein, her date of bi