Medical Age Assessment Valid Absent Primary Documents, Victim's Testimony Sufficient for POCSO Conviction: Gauhati High Court (S.366/376 IPC, S.4 POCSO Act) - 2025-06-12

Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Minor's Kidnapping and Rape Case, Affirms Trial Court's Findings on Age and Testimony

Guwahati , Assam (Date: 12.06.2025) – The Gauhati High Court, in a significant judgment, has upheld the conviction and sentence of Sofa Uddin for the kidnapping and rape of a minor girl. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mridul KumarKalita dismissed the criminal appeal (Crl.A. 21 / 2022), affirming the trial court's decision which found Uddin guilty under Sections 366 (kidnapping) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 4 (penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

The appellant, Sofa Uddin , had been sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment for kidnapping and 10 years rigorous imprisonment under the POCSO Act, with fines, sentences to run concurrently.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR lodged on February 2, 2018, by Suleman Uddin , the victim's father. He alleged that on January 30, 2018, his minor daughter (referred to as "X") was forcefully dragged from outside her house by the appellant, Sofa Uddin , taken to his house, and subsequently raped. The FIR also mentioned a prior incident involving another daughter ("Y") of the informant, though charges were framed only concerning victim "X".

The Additional Session Judge cum Special Judge, Cachar, convicted Uddin on December 20, 2021, leading to the present appeal.

Appellant's Contentions

Mr. L. R. Majumdar, counsel for the appellant, primarily challenged the conviction on several grounds:

* Age Determination: Argued that the trial court erred in determining the victim's age by relying on medical opinion (PW-7, the doctor) without first considering primary documents like school or birth certificates, as mandated by Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and citing P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State .

* Witness Testimonies: Claimed material contradictions in the testimonies of the victim (PW-1), her father (PW-2), and mother (PW-3), which were allegedly overlooked. It was also pointed out that PW-4, the informant's son-in-law, testified that the victim initially refused to return from the appellant's house.

* False Implication: Suggested the case was lodged due to a grudge, as the appellant had facilitated the marriage of the informant's elder daughter "Y," who had eloped.

* Delay in FIR: Highlighted an alleged delay in lodging the FIR.

* Unlikelihood of Prolonged Confinement: Questioned how the victim could be kept at the appellant's house, merely 200 meters away, for two months without intervention.

Prosecution's Rebuttal

Mr. D. Das, Additional Public Prosecutor, and Ms. Debashree Saikia, Amicus Curiae, supported the trial court's judgment:

* Victim 's Testimony: Emphasized that the victim (PW-1) categorically stated she was raped, and her testimony was corroborated by her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and medical evidence (torn hymen).

* Age Proof: Asserted that the medical evidence (PW-7), which assessed the victim as below 16 years, remained uncontroverted as the defense declined to cross-examine the doctor.

* FIR Delay Explained: The informant (PW-2) had explained that the delay was due to villagers initially assuring a settlement.

High Court's Rationale and Findings

Justice Kalita meticulously examined the trial court records and the arguments presented.

On Age Determination: The Court acknowledged the hierarchy for age determination under Section 94 of the JJ Act. However, it noted: > "In the instant case, though, the PW-1 and PW-2 has stated in his testimony that he had submitted the copy of birth certificate along with the FIR to the Investigating Officer, however, the prosecution side did not exhibit any such birth certificate."

The Court found that since primary documents like birth or school certificates were not exhibited, the trial court was not wrong in relying on the available medical evidence (PW-7's testimony and Exh-3). PW-7, based on physical, dental, laboratory, and radiological investigations, opined the victim's age as "above 14 and below 16 years." This testimony remained unchallenged. The Court distinguished the P. Yuvaprakash case, where both birth certificates and medical reports (indicating majority) were available. It also noted that even a photocopy of a birth certificate in the case diary (showing DOB 16.06.2002) would render the victim a minor at the time of the incident (30.01.2018). The trial court's application of the Jaya Mala vs. Home Secretary principle (allowing a two-year margin for radiological age assessment) to conclude the victim was under 18 was deemed correct based on the evidence on record.

On Victim 's Testimony and Contradictions: The conviction largely rested on the testimony of the victim (PW-1), who detailed the abduction and repeated rape. The appellant argued her court testimony was contradicted by her earlier statements to the police, as suggested by the Investigating Officer (PW-11). The High Court, however, found this contention flawed: > "As early as in 1959, the Apex Court has clarified in the case of 'Tahsildar Singh and Another Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh'... that whenever a witness is intended to be contradicted in relation to his previous statement which is recorded down in writing, the attention of the said witness must be drawn to the such previous statement... before he may be contradicted."

The Court observed that the proper procedure for proving contradictions was not followed during PW-1's cross-examination. Furthermore: > "Hence, by merely stating that the victim did not state in the exactly same manner before the Investigating Officer as deposed by her during her examination-in-chief would not amount to contradicting her with regard to the material particulars i.e., with regard to the accusation of rape by the appellant."

The Court found PW-1's testimony credible and corroborated by her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., concluding there was "no reason to disbelieve her testimony."

Final Decision

Finding no grounds to interfere with the trial court's judgment, the Gauhati High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. > "The impugned judgment is, accordingly, upheld and the finding of conviction in the sentence imposed on the appellant is not interfered with. This appeal is accordingly dismissed."

The Court directed the trial court records to be sent back along with a copy of the judgment.