Victim's Testimony is Sterling Witness Standard, Stepmother's Retraction Insufficient to Overturn POCSO Conviction: Gauhati High Court - 2025-10-12

Gauhati High Court Upholds 10-Year POCSO Sentence, Citing Victim's 'Sterling' Testimony Over Stepmother's Retraction

AIZAWL, MIZORAM – The Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction and 10-year rigorous imprisonment of a 57-year-old man, Sh. Lalhnuna, for the repeated rape of a 15-year-old girl, ruling that the victim's consistent and credible testimony meets the standard of a "sterling witness" and cannot be discredited by a subsequent retraction from her stepmother.

The bench, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kaushik Goswami , dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Lalhnuna against the judgment of the Fast Track Court in Kolasib, which found him guilty under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

---

Background of the Case

The case originated from an FIR filed on August 27, 2022, by Smt. Lalbiaksangi, the victim's stepmother. She alleged that Lalhnuna had raped her 15-year-old stepdaughter multiple times since June 2022 at his residence and in a jhum hut (a farm hut). The trial court convicted Lalhnuna under Section 4(1) of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000.

Lalhnuna challenged this decision in the High Court, presenting his case through an Amicus Curiae.

---

Arguments Before the High Court

Appellant's Defence: The Amicus Curiae, Mr. Lalramdinthara, argued on three primary grounds: 1. Fatal Delay: There was an unexplained two-month delay in filing the FIR, which he argued was fatal to the prosecution's case. 2. Inconsistent Victim Testimony: He claimed the victim's statements about the location of the assaults were inconsistent, rendering her testimony unreliable and not of "sterling quality." 3. Informant's Retraction: The most significant defence was a letter submitted to the trial court by the victim's stepmother (the original informant), stating that her accusation was "incorrect" and the accused was "innocent." She was also examined as a defence witness to corroborate this letter.

Prosecution's Rebuttal: The Public Prosecutor and the Legal Aid Counsel for the informant countered these arguments forcefully: 1. Delay Explained: The delay was natural as the victim was repeatedly threatened by the accused. Her stepmother filed the FIR immediately after learning about the assaults on August 26, 2022. 2. Consistent Core Allegations: The prosecution maintained that the victim's testimony on the "core spectrum of the crime" was unwavering—from her initial police statement to her deposition in court. 3. Retraction Letter is Vague: They argued that the stepmother's retraction letter was vague and could not outweigh the direct, trustworthy, and credible evidence provided by the victim herself, which was also corroborated by medical evidence showing a ruptured hymen.

---

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

Justice Goswami conducted a thorough re-appreciation of the evidence, focusing on the credibility of the victim's testimony. The court emphasized the established legal principle that in sexual assault cases, the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence and is of "sterling quality."

The court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Phool Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh , to define a "sterling witness" as one whose version on the core aspects of the crime remains consistent and unassailable.

Upon reviewing the victim's statements to the police, the Judicial Magistrate, and her deposition in court, Justice Goswami observed:

"She has further elaborately described the aforesaid incident in a natural and realistic manner and the same remains intact right from her initial statement made before the Investigating Officer till her deposition made before the Trial Court... I am of the unhesitant view that the testimony of the victim/PW-2 is wholly trustworthy, credible, unblemished and of sterling quality."

Regarding the stepmother's retraction, the court found the letter to be "too vague" and insufficient to discredit the victim's powerful testimony. The judgment noted that while the stepmother claimed family support for the letter, she was its sole signatory. The trial court's finding that the letter had "no evidentiary value for the accused to prove his innocence" was affirmed.

---

Final Judgment

The High Court concluded that the trial court had committed no legal infirmity in its judgment. It rejected the appellant's arguments regarding the delay in the FIR and the alleged inconsistencies in the victim's account.

Finding no grounds for interference, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence. The court also acknowledged the services of the Amicus Curiae and the Legal Aid Counsel, directing that their fees be paid.