Gauhati High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction, Emphasizes Reliability of Child Victim's Testimony Despite Minor Discrepancies

Aizawl, Mizoram – The Gauhati High Court, in a significant judgment dated May 2, 2025, dismissed an appeal filed by Biakhmingthanga , thereby upholding his conviction and sentence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Hon’ble Mrs. Justice MarliVankung , presiding over the case, ruled that minor discrepancies in the testimony of a child prosecutrix do not negate its evidentiary value if her account is otherwise consistent, inspires confidence, and is corroborated by other evidence.

The appeal (Crl.A./5/2022) challenged the Judgment and Order dated December 8, 2021, by the Special Court (POCSO Act), Lunglei District, which had found the appellant guilty of committing offences under Section 5(l) & (m) of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR lodged on July 24, 2020, by the prosecutrix, who was around 11 years old at the time of the incident in mid-2019. She alleged that the appellant, Biakhmingthanga , took her to a basement and sexually assaulted her. She later disclosed the incident while at a Child Care Centre. The Lunglei Police Station registered Case No. 54/2020 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence of six prosecution witnesses. The appellant pleaded not guilty and examined two defense witnesses.

Appellant's Arguments Challenging Conviction

Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, counsel for the appellant, contended that the trial court erred in convicting his client based solely on the prosecutrix's testimony, which he argued was unreliable and riddled with contradictions when compared to her statement under Section 164 CrPC and other witness testimonies. Key arguments included: * Discrepancies regarding the sequence of events and location of the assault. * The prosecutrix's alleged intoxication at the time. * Lack of conclusive medical evidence directly linking the appellant to the hymenal tear. * Testimonies of caseworkers (PW-4, PW-5) being hearsay, based only on the prosecutrix's account. * Defense witness (DW-1, appellant's mother) testimony suggesting impossibility of the crime occurring unnoticed in their small house. * Defense witness (DW-2) describing the alleged crime scene (store room) as messy and unsuitable. * Reliance on precedents like Buddhu Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Prahlad Vs. State of Rajasthan for giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

Prosecution's Counter-Arguments

Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, Addl. Public Prosecutor, and Mr. H. Zodinsanga , Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2 (prosecutrix), defended the trial court's judgment, submitting that: * The prosecutrix was only 11 years old, from a broken family, and her testimony was consistent on core facts. * Minor discrepancies in timing or details do not vitiate the core of her testimony, especially given her age and trauma. * Medical evidence showing an old hymenal tear corroborated penetration, and the doctor opined it was due to rape. * PW-6’s testimony placed the appellant with the prosecutrix on the evening of the incident. * The reversed burden of proof under POCSO applies once foundational facts are established by the prosecution. * Reliance on judgments like * State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Manga Singh * regarding minor contradictions.

Court's Analysis and Reliance on Precedents

Justice Vankung meticulously examined the evidence, including the testimonies of the prosecutrix (PW-1), caseworkers (PW-4, PW-5), an outreach worker (PW-6), and the examining doctor (PW-8).

The Court acknowledged "certain discrepancies" between the prosecutrix's deposition and her Section 164 CrPC statement. However, it found her testimony "consistent with the fact that the appellant/accused had committed sexual assault on her below the house of U Baby and that he later carried her and had sex with her on his bed."

The judgment extensively referred to Supreme Court precedents on appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix in sexual assault cases: * State of H.P. v. Manga Singh : Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence; minor contradictions are not a ground for discarding evidence. * ** Bhagwan Jagannath Markad and Others V State of Maharashtra : Courts must assess if evidence, read as a whole, is truthful, and some discrepancies not touching the core of the case are not enough to reject it. * Thoti Manohar V State of A.P : Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case cannot discredit the prosecution's story. * ** Sham Singh v. State of Haryana : Courts should examine broader probabilities and not be swayed by minor contradictions; a victim's testimony is vital. * ** Karnel Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh **: A victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice, and her evidence doesn't require the same level of suspicion.

The Court found corroboration for the prosecutrix's account in: * The testimonies of PW-5 (Counselor Nu Nunpuii) and PW-4 (Caseworker Nu Saii, referred to as PW-6 in para 33 error, but is PW-4 Saimawii Sailo as per witness list), to whom she first disclosed the incident. * The medical report (Ext P-5) and the deposition of Dr. Catherine Lalmuanawmi (PW-8), who noted an "old tear hymen at 4 to 7 O’Clock position" and opined during re-examination that this was "due to rape." * The appellant's own admission under Section 313 CrPC that he took the prosecutrix to his home on the night of the incident and asked her to leave early (around 4 AM) the next morning. The Court noted, "there is no explanation why she was asked to leave as early as 4 am the next day which is found unnaturally early under normal circumstances." * The testimony of DW-1 (appellant's mother) also confirmed the prosecutrix was at their house with the appellant.

The Court observed, "this Court finds that the evidence of PW-5, PW-4 (correcting reference from PW-6 to PW-4 as per context and witness depositions) and PW-8 corroborate with the evidence of the prosecutrix and therefore find that there are no any grounds to doubt her testimony and find it trustworthy, inspiring the confidence of this Court." It also noted there was "no reason whatsoever for the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the accused/appellant."

Final Decision and Implications

Concluding its findings, the High Court stated: > "In view of the above findings and reasoning, this Court is of the considered opinion that the offence of aggravated penetrated sexual assault is clearly established and proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/appellant and hence do not find ground for interfering with the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2021, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO Act), Lunglei District..."

The appeal (Crl.A./5/2022) was accordingly dismissed. The Court also directed payment of requisite fees to the Legal Aid Counsel.

This judgment reinforces the legal principle that in POCSO cases, the testimony of a child victim, if found credible and confidence-inspiring, holds significant weight, and minor inconsistencies, especially those attributable to age, trauma, or lapse of time, do not automatically discredit the prosecution's case, particularly when corroborated by other evidence.