Suresh Pegu, S/o. Bhula Pegu vs State Of Assam, Rep. By The P.P., Assam

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1142

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.

Suresh Pegu, S/o. Bhula Pegu – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam, Rep. By The P.P., Assam And Anr. – Respondents
Crl. A. No. 415 of 2023
Decided On : 02-06-2026

Important Points

In sexual assault cases, once physical contact is established, the law mandates a presumption of non-consent unless rebutted. Minor inconsistencies in the victim's testimony do not discredit the case if the core narrative is corroborated, even if forensic evidence is procedurally incomplete.

Subject

Criminal Law - Sexual Offences

Act Referred

INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.376
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT: S.6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.164, S.313
EVIDENCE ACT: S.114(a)

Headnote

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sexual assault - Consent - Burden of proof - Evidence Act - Where the victim testifies that sexual intercourse occurred without consent, courts are mandated to presume the absence of consent - Testimony does not require mathematical precision; minor inconsistencies do not necessarily render evidence unreliable if the core allegations remain consistent and corroborated. (Paras 9, 20)

(B) Evidence - Extra-judicial confession - Independent witnesses - Judicial proceedings - Admissions of physical relationships made before independent members of the community hold significant evidentiary value - Failure to provide reasonable explanations during mandatory questioning of the accused may support the prosecution's case. (Paras 14, 20, 22)

(C) Forensic Science - DNA profiling - Admissibility - Impact of procedural flaws - The absence of impeccable forensic evidence does not necessitate acquittal if the prosecution provides sufficient independent and cogent evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
A complaint was filed after the victim was discovered to be pregnant, months after the initial incident of sexual assault. The trial court convicted the accused under the Indian Penal Code, having noted the failure of the prosecution to establish the victim's minority at the time of the incident to invoke special protection of children legislation. The accused challenged the conviction, citing inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, the delay in reporting, and the integrity of forensic evidence collected.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the delay in reporting was sufficiently explained by the psychological trauma and coercion exerted by the perpetrator. The court confirmed that the conviction was sustained by consistent evidence regarding the accused’s extra-judicial admissions and corroborating testimony from independent witnesses, rendering the forensic issues secondary.

Issues: Whether the inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony and the significant delay in reporting the incident undermined the prosecution’s case, and whether inadequate forensic testing could serve as grounds for acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that once a sexual encounter is established, the legal presumption of non-consent shifts the burden to the defense. It concluded that the testimony of a victim in such sensitive cases is of sterling quality provided the core narrative is credible, even in the event of minor variations in peripheral details.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Dr. A. Chamuah, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. S.H. Bora, Addl. P.P, Assam. Dr. P. Agarwal, Legal Aid Counsel.

Table of Content
1. summary of procedural history and initial trial facts. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. trial court's reasoning on consent and age determination. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. appellant objections concerning evidence reliability, dna integrity, and cross-examination. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. prosecution's argument regarding victim credibility and explanation for procedural delays. (Para 15 , 16)
5. appellate court's validation of witness testimony and minor evidential discrepancies. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. dismissal of appeal confirming trial court conviction. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.

Heard Dr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Also heard Dr. P. Agarwal, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2 and Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

2. This is an appeal against judgment and order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the Learned Special Judge POCSO Sivasagar Assam in POCSO Special Case number 61 of 2022 whereby the accused, who is the present appellant, has been convicted under Section 376 (2) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of rupees 10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months.

3. A First Information Report was lodged with the Nitaipukuri Police Station on 4th of July 2022, stating that the minor sister of the informant, who is aged about 17 years, was found to be eight months pregnant and on interrogation, the minor had stated that she had been raped by a co-villager, namely the appellant herein, by posing a threat at night by showing a dao. The FIR alleged that the accused had admitted to the said fact. It was accordingly requested to take appropriate action against the accused as per law.

4. Demow Police Station case no 77/2022 under Section 376 of the IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, was registered on the basis of the said FIR. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused under Section 376 of the IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The case was tried as Special POCSO case no. 61/2022 in the court of the learned Additional Session Judge cum Special Judge POCSO, Sivasagar and by the impugned Judgment dated 19.09.2023, the accused was found guilty of committing offence under Section 376 of the IPC, and he was sentenced as stated in the foregoing paragraphs.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses, including the medical officer, the investigation officer, the victim and the informant. The statement of the accused had been recorded as per the provisions of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The Defence did not produce any witnesses.

6. The learned Trial Court framed 3 points for determination, namely

1. Whether the victim was less than 18 years of age at the time of the incident?

2. Whether about eight months prior to the lodging of the Ejahar on 04.07.2022, the accused, on several days, committed rape on the victim/Miss X, and thereby committed offense punishable under Section 376(2) of the IPC?; and

3. Whether during the same period, the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim/Miss X, more than once and thereby committed offense punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act?

7. The learned Trial Court was of the opinion that the date of birth of the victim entered in the school record could not be considered for ascertainment of her age since the basis of the date of birth of the victim entered there was not found to be reliable. Further from the oral evidence on record, the learned Court was of the opinion that it was not proved beyond doubt that the victim was aged less than 18 years at the time of the incident. It was held that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was aged less than 18 years at the time of the incident, and therefore, it could not be held that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. There is no challenge to this finding of the learned Tria