Victim's Consistent Testimony of 'Sterling Quality' Sufficient for POCSO Conviction, Delay in FIR Not Fatal: Gauhati High Court - 2025-10-12

Gauhati High Court Upholds Grandfather's Conviction, Citing Victim's 'Sterling Quality' Testimony as Sufficient Proof

Aizawl, Mizoram – The Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction and 5-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of a man for the aggravated sexual assault of his granddaughter, reinforcing the legal principle that the consistent, credible, and unblemished testimony of a child victim is sufficient for conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

In a judgment delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kaushik Goswami , the court dismissed the appeal filed by Sh. Laltluanga, who was found guilty by a Fast Track Special Court in 2021 under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The High Court ruled that a delay in filing the FIR is not fatal in such cases, especially considering the victim's circumstances.

---

Background of the Case

The case originated from an FIR lodged on September 1, 2017, by the victim's father. He alleged that his daughter, then 15, had been repeatedly sexually assaulted by her maternal grandfather, the appellant, since 2012 when she was in Class V. The victim had been living with her grandfather following her parents' divorce. The final incident occurred on August 20, 2017, after which the victim confided in friends, leading to the information reaching her father.

The trial court found the appellant guilty based primarily on the victim's testimony and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000. The appellant challenged this conviction, arguing that the long delay in filing the FIR and inconsistencies in the victim's account of reporting the incident made the prosecution's case weak.

---

Key Arguments in the High Court

Appellant's Defence: Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, acting as Amicus Curiae for the appellant, raised two primary arguments: 1. Delay in FIR: He contended that the five-year delay between the start of the abuse (2012) and the FIR (2017) was fatal to the prosecution's case. 2. Inconsistencies: He pointed out that key witnesses to whom the victim allegedly first disclosed the abuse (her friends and relatives) were not examined. He argued that discrepancies between her statement to the magistrate and her court deposition regarding who she told first rendered her testimony untrustworthy.

Prosecution's Stance: Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, the Additional Public Prosecutor, countered that the victim’s account of the sexual assault remained consistent and detailed throughout the investigation—from her initial statement to the police (u/s 161 Cr.PC), her statement before the magistrate (u/s 164 Cr.PC), and her deposition in court. She argued that the core allegations of sexual contact without penetration were unshaken and corroborated by the victim's father. She also highlighted that the appellant had made a confession to the Investigating Officer.

---

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles

Justice Goswami conducted a thorough re-appreciation of the evidence, emphasizing the court's responsibility to handle such cases with utmost sensitivity. The court firmly established that in cases of sexual assault, the victim's testimony holds a higher pedestal.

On the Credibility of Victim's Testimony: The court found the victim's testimony to be "trustworthy, credible, and of sterling quality." The judgment noted:

"The core spectrum of the allegation of sexual assault as narrated by her right from the beginning till the end... appears to be detailed, natural, reiterated, and consistent."

Citing several Supreme Court precedents, including Ganesan Vs. State and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh , the court reiterated that corroboration is not a prerequisite for conviction if the prosecutrix's evidence inspires confidence.

On the Delay in Reporting: The court dismissed the defence's argument regarding the delay, contextualizing the victim's silence. Justice Goswami observed:

"In the instant case, there is nothing unnatural or unusual about a girl child of 15 years, who is staying with her grandparents after her parents have gotten a divorce, being sexually assaulted by her own grandfather... keeping silent for a long time... This Court cannot disbelief her, only because she gathered her courage to speak of the alleged sexual assault... after so many years."

The court also noted that the appellant had admitted during his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC that he had confessed his guilt to the Investigating Officer.

---

Final Decision

Finding no legal infirmity or illegality in the trial court's judgment, the Gauhati High Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the offence of aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(n) of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 10.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The court also acknowledged the services of the Amicus Curiae and the Legal Aid Counsel, directing that their fees be paid.