Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1031

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Michael Zothankhuma, Nelson Sailo, JJ.
Sh. K. Lalmuankima, S/o K. Vanthuama – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Mizoram and Anr. – Respondents
CRL.A(J) 10 of 2025
Decided On : 27-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Mrs. Vanneihsiami, Addl. PP, Mrs. Emily L. Chhangte, Legal Aid Counsel

Absence of injury on private parts and minor inconsistencies in a child victim's testimony do not discredit a rape conviction if the testimony is credible and corroborated; violation of Section 27(2) POCSO (male doctor) without prejudice is not fatal.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 - Sections 6, 27(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 AB - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 164, 313 - Appeal against conviction - Conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act for rape of a 10-year-old child - Sentence of 20 years RI and fine - Whether absence of injury on private parts of victim, minor inconsistency in victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC vis-à-vis trial testimony, and medical examination by a male doctor in violation of Section 27(2) POCSO Act are grounds to set aside conviction. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33)

(B) Evidence - Testimony of prosecutrix - A conviction can be founded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration - Minor inconsistencies not going to the root of the matter do not vitiate an otherwise reliable prosecution case - Absence of injury on private parts is not fatal to the case of rape - It is not necessary that in every rape case there must be injury; depends on facts and circumstances. (Paras 29, 30, 32)

(C) POCSO Act - Section 27(2) - Medical examination of a girl child by a male doctor - Violation of statutory provision - However, if no prejudice is caused to the accused and the medical report is not challenged, the irregularity does not vitiate the trial - In a remote village, absence of a female doctor may be a practical reality. (Para 33)

Facts of the case:
The victim, a 10-year-old girl, alleged that the appellant (a neighbour) raped her multiple times between April 2021 and mid-May 2022, both in his under-construction house and later in his school and residence. The appellant gave her money after each incident. The victim's father beat her on 28.06.2022, after which she disclosed the abuse. An FIR was lodged, and the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded. Medical examination by a male doctor (PW-4) revealed a ruptured hymen but no other injuries. The victim testified that she felt no pain or bleeding. The appellant's wife (DW-3) testified that she once saw the appellant and the victim together on the ground floor of their house. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 6 POCSO Act, sentencing him to 20 years RI and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The appellant appealed, arguing that the absence of injury, the minor inconsistency in the victim's 164 statement (the threat to pull her hair was not mentioned), and the violation of Section 27(2) POCSO (male doctor) made the conviction unsustainable.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the victim's testimony was truthful, reliable, and inspired confidence. The minor omission in the 164 statement regarding the threat did not affect the root of the case. The evidence of DW-3 corroborated the victim's version that she was found with the appellant. There was no enmity or suggestion of tutoring. The absence of injury on the private parts was not fatal, especially given the repeated rapes over more than a year and the fact that the hymen was ruptured. The violation of Section 27(2) POCSO (male doctor) did not cause any prejudice to the appellant, as the medical report was not challenged and the doctor was likely the only available doctor in the village. The court relied on Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21, Lok Mal Alias Loku vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 4 SCC 470, and State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Sanjay Kumar Alias Sunny (2017) 2 SCC 51.

Issues: (1) Whether the absence of pain, bleeding, or injury on the private parts of the victim negates the offence of rape. (2) Whether a minor inconsistency in the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC (non-mention of a threat) renders her testimony unreliable. (3) Whether the medical examination by a male doctor in violation of Section 27(2) POCSO Act vitiates the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The testimony of a child victim of sexual assault, if found trustworthy and corroborated by other evidence, can sustain a conviction. Absence of injury is not conclusive of no rape; each case depends on its facts. Minor inconsistencies that do not go to the root of the case are not fatal. A technical violation of Section 27(2) POCSO, without any prejudice to the accused, does not warrant setting aside the conviction. The court must adopt a survivor-centric approach, especially in cases involving child victims. Result : Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence affirmed.

JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Mrs. Emily L. Chhangte, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This is an appeal against the impugned Judgment & Order passed by the Presiding Officer/Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Champhai in FTSC (CPI) POCSO 46/2022, arising out of Criminal Trial No. 178/2022, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 (twenty) years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, i/d Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month.

3. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the case of the victim (10 years old) that she had been raped by the appellant, who was a full grown man appears to be doubtful, in view of the fact that the victim had stated that she did not experience pain during or after the incident of rape. Further, the victim stated in her cross-examination that there was no bleeding in her private parts after the incident of rape had occurred.

4. The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that the evidence of the male Doctor, who is PW-4, is to the effect that the hymen of the victim was ruptured/not intact. She submits that the examination of the victim girl should have been done by a lady Doctor, in terms of Section 27(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and not by a male Doctor. As such, there was violation of Section 27(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012 due to examination of the victim by a male Doctor.

5. The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that there is inconsistency in the statement made by the victim under Section 164 Cr.PC and in her testimony before the learned Trial Court. In her testimony before the learned Trial Court, the victim had stated that when she resisted the attempt by the appellant to rape her, the appellant threatened her by saying that ‘If you shout, I will pull your hair’. However, no such statement had been made by the victim in her 164 Cr.PC statement. Thus, as the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.PC did not fully corroborate the testimony of the victim during trial, conviction could not have been made solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim, who was not a sterling witness. In this respect, she has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21, wherein it has been held that when a witness evidence does not show that she is a sterling witness, the evidence of the victim would have to be corroborated by other evidence.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that there was no injury on the private parts of the victim, even though she had alleged that she had been raped by the appellant who was the full grown man. She submits that it was unbelievable that a child of ten years would not have injury in her private parts, if she had been raped by a full grown man. As the evidence did not prove that the victim had been raped by the appellant, the impugned Judgment & Order should be set aside.

7. Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submits that there is no inconsistency in the evidence of the witness, vis-à-vis her statement made under Section 164 Cr.PC. In fact, the evidence of the victim to the effect that she and the appellant had been caught by the wife of the appellant in the ground floor of the appellant’s house has been corroborated by the evidence of the wife of the appellant, who is Defence Witness-3 (DW-3). The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the statement made by the victim under Section 164 Cr.PC also corroborates the testimony of the victim and just because the victim did not state the threat given to her by the appellant in her 164 Cr.PC statement did not mean that the evidence of the victim was not reliable.

8. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submits that there is no enmity between the family of the vict