Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1286
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.
Sh. Lalpianfela, S/o. Lalsiamkunga - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Mizoram and Anr. – Respondents
Crl.A(J)/21 of 2025
Decided On : 07-08-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr C. Lalfakzuala (Amicus Curiae)
For the Respondents: Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, Legal Aid Counsel
Conviction under POCSO Act can be based on sole testimony of minor victim if reliable and consistent; age may be proved by medical evidence when school records are unavailable and age is not disputed.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5 and 6 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376(3) - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 94 - Conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault - Appeal against conviction - Child witness competency - Age determination - Principles of 'sterling witness' - Minor discrepancies not fatal.
(B) Child witness - Competency - A child witness, if found competent to depose and reliable, can be the basis of conviction - The trial court is not obliged in every case to formally assess competency by preliminary questions; it may do so only if there is doubt - The decision of the trial judge on competency is not to be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. (Paras 20-21, relying on Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 1 SCC 64 and Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341)
(C) Age determination - In the absence of school or municipal birth certificate, medical opinion based on radiological tests may be relied upon - Where the age is not disputed by the defence, the court may accept medical evidence - Even after adding two years to the medically determined age, the victim remained a minor. (Paras 23-25, relying on P. Yuvaprakash v. State, (2023) AIR SC 3525 and Section 94 of the JJ Act)
(D) Evidence - 'Sterling witness' - The testimony of a witness must be consistent from the initial statement to the deposition in court, withstand cross-examination, and match with other supporting material - Minor variations do not destroy credibility. (Para 20, citing Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Aizawl, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(3) of the IPC for raping his 11-12 year old sister on two occasions in August and September 2023. The victim was living with the appellant at his house. The FIR was lodged by a counsellor of a children's home. The prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the victim, her friend, school headmistress, and medical officers. The victim's testimony was consistent. The defence did not dispute the victim's age during trial. The appellant was sentenced to 20 years RI with fine. He appealed, contending that the trial court failed to assess the competency of the minor victim and that the age was not properly proved.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the evidence of the minor victim was reliable, consistent, and withstood cross-examination. There was no material contradiction except a minor variation regarding the date of the incident, which was not fatal. The trial court was not required to formally test the child's competency when her testimony showed she understood questions and gave rational answers. Regarding age, since the defence did not dispute it, the medical opinion (11-12 years) was sufficient; even giving benefit of two years, the victim was below 14 years. The conviction was therefore upheld.
Issues: (i) Whether the trial court erred in not assessing the competency of the minor victim before recording her evidence? (ii) Whether the age of the victim was conclusively proved in the absence of school or municipal records?
Ratio Decidendi: A child witness's evidence can be accepted without formal competency testing if it appears reliable and consistent. Age determination under the POCSO Act may be based on medical opinion when school or municipal records are unavailable and the age is not challenged. Minor discrepancies in the victim's statements do not undermine the prosecution case if the core version remains intact. Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Mazumdar, J.
1. Heard Mr. Lalfakzuala, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned PP for the State and Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2.
2. The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal assailing the Judgment & Order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Aizawl Judicial District, whereby the appellant had been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 376(3) of the IPC. The appellant had been sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- for his conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and had been sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of 20 years with a fine of Rs. 30,000/- for his conviction under Section 376(3) of the IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The facts of the case:
3. The investigation leading to the conviction of the appellant herein was put into motion by an FIR lodged by a Counselor serving in the Hermon Children's Home on 26.09.2023, by which the informant reported that the minor victim had been raped by her own brother on 28.08.2023 at around 6:00 AM at Zion Veng, when there was no one else at home. It was further reported that on 30.09.2023, the accused had again committed sexual assault on the victim at around 4:00 PM. The report further divulged that there was a delay in lodging the FIR since the information had been received belatedly from the Child Helpline and the Child Welfare Committee. It was reported that the parents of the victim were already divorced and the whereabouts of her mother were not known. It was also reported that the father had remarried and lived with his new wife and children.
4. On the basis of the FIR, All Women Police Station Case No. 38/2023 was registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 376(AB) of the IPC and the investigation was carried out, which resulted in Charge-sheet No. 45/2023 dated 13.11.2023. The appellant herein had been arrested on 26.09.2023 and had not been granted bail during the period of investigation.
5. On the Charge-sheet being submitted by the Investigating Authority, the learned Trial Court framed the following charge, namely:
“That, on 28.08.2023 at 6:00 am you had committed rape on your sister X aged 11 yrs inside your residence at Zion Veng, Durtlang by inserting your penis into her vagina and on 03.09.2023 at around 4:00 pm while your wife and other family members were absent, you again forcefully inserted your penis into X’s mouth and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 ‘AB’ IPC and within the cognizance of this Court.”
6. The case was taken up for trial by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Aizawl in S.C. No. 114/2023 A/o Crl.Tr.No. 2080/2023. The prosecution led eight witnesses, although nine were named in the Charge-sheet and nine documents were exhibited during the trial by the prosecution. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, and he had stated that he would like to adduce defense evidence. However, as recorded in the Order dated 09.09.2024 by the learned Trial Court, the defense submitted that defense evidence would not be adduced and as such, the defense was closed. It is also relevant to note here that the Prosecution Witness No. 5 proposed by the prosecution, namely the JMFC-2, Aizawl, i.e., the learned Magistrate, who had recorded the statement of the victim under provisions of Section 164 of the Cr.PC had been dropped from the list of witnesses on the consent of both the parties, who had agreed to assume that the statement recorded by the aforesaid witness was done in accordance with law. Arguments having been heard on 11.11.2024, the Judgment was delivered on 25.11.2024.
Case of the Prosecution
7. The informant, who was serving as a Counselor at Hermon Children's Home, Durtlang, deposed as PW-1. She deposed that on 25.09.20
