2026 Supreme(Gau) 727

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, C.J., MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
Sh. P. Lalhmachhuana, S/o. Zothangpuia – Appellant
Versus 
The State of Mizoram and Anr. – Respondents
Crl.A(J) No.26 of 2025
Decided On : 02-03-2026

Conviction in sexual assault cases can be based on the sole testimony of a victim if deemed trustworthy. Delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal provided the explanation is plausible. Where evidence leaves the victim's precise age at the time of the offence ambiguous, the court must adopt the interpretative view favoring the accused.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4 and 6 - Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 AB - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 164, 313 and 217 - Penetrative sexual assault - Conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix - Validity - Conviction can be based on sole testimony of the victim if it inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy; corroboration is not a strict requirement of law but a counsel of prudence. (Paras 24, 26)

(B) FIR - Delay in lodging - Effect of - Mere delay in filing is not fatal if the explanation is plausible and the testimony is reliable; the causes for delay must be evaluated considering the specific facts and circumstances. (Paras 35, 36, 40)

(C) Sentencing - Alteration of charge - In cases where ambiguity exists regarding the victim's age at the time of the offence, the court may adopt the view favorable to the accused while ensuring justice is served by modifying the charge to a corresponding legal provision without requiring the recalling of witnesses if it causes undue delay. (Paras 44, 48)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for penetrative sexual assault against a minor girl, aged approximately 12 years. The investigation was initiated following an FIR submitted by the victim's relative. The appellant challenged the judgment, citing discrepancies in the victim's testimony, alleged financial motives of the informant, and the delay in reporting the incident.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the victim's account was credible despite the delay in lodging the complaint, noting the trauma involved in such cases. The court observed that the appellant's attempt to shift blame was an afterthought. However, noting the ambiguity in the age of the victim at the time of the offence, the court modified the conviction from the original section to a lower section to reflect the benefit of the doubt regarding the victim's age threshold.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the sole testimony of a minor victim is sufficient for conviction, whether the delay in lodging the FIR vitiates the prosecution's case, and whether the conviction under the specific section of the Act was legally sustainable given the uncertainty regarding the victim's age.

Ratio Decidendi: The legal consistency of the victim's statement remained intact; the court balanced the procedural requirements with the substantive justice needed in sexual assault cases. Because of the ambiguous timeline which could place the offence either before or after the victim attained age twelve, the court adopted the more favorable legal interpretation for the accused regarding the specific sentencing provision.

Result: Appeal allowed in part; conviction and sentence under the original section set aside and modified to a different section while maintaining the 20-year sentence.