The Gauhati High Court set aside a man’s conviction under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, ruling that once it is determined that the prosecutrix did not testify truthfully before the Trial Court, her evidence loses its sterling quality and it becomes unsafe for the Court to place reliance on such testimony.

A Single Bench of Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita observed, “This Court is of considered opinion that once it is found that the prosecutrix has not deposed truthfully before the Trial Court, her evidence no longer remains of a sterling quality and, therefore, it becomes unsafe for the Trial Court to rely on such testimony and to come to the finding of guilt of the appellant on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of such a witness.”

The Court added, “It is also pertinent to note that the victim, in this case, is also a child witness and, therefore, possibility of tutoring her may not be excluded.”

The case arose from an FIR lodged by the father of the minor victim, alleging that the Appellant took his seven-year-old daughter at night, gagged her mouth, and raped her.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

The Appellant contended that there was a constant tinkering with the accusation against the appellant at various stages of the trial, which prejudiced him. He further submitted that the medical officer had found no evidence of recent sexual intercourse on the victim and no injuries detected, with the hymen being intact. The Appellant averred that when the allegation of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 could not be proved, he ought to have been acquitted, and that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts necessary for presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act.

Opposing the appeal, the Respondent submitted that in cases of sexual offences, if the evidence of the prosecutrix inspired confidence, there was no bar in convicting the Appellant on the basis of such sole testimony. The Respondent further submitted that minor inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence would not discredit the victim’s testimony.

Upon hearing the parties, the Court observed that Once it is found that the prosecutrix has not deposed truthfully before the Trial Court, her evidence no longer remains of a sterling quality and, therefore, it becomes unsafe for the Trial Court to rely on such testimony.

The Court further noted that, “The victim girl has deposed that the appellant had pushed his penis into her vagina and raped her for one hour… If she was subjected to penetrative sexual intercourse by the appellant for about one hour, there would certainly be some signs… however, no injury was detected and her hymen was found intact.”

The Court observed that the Trial Court found the testimony of the medical officer to be an exaggeration of facts, however, it came to a conclusion that this case is a case of aggravated sexual assault merely on assumption without evidence.

The Court opined that the finding of the Trial Court ought to have been based on the evidence on record, and that the Trial Court’s assumption was impermissible. “The Trial Court failed to consider the plea taken by the appellant during his examination under Section 313 CrPC as well as evidence adduced by the defence witnesses”, the Court added.

The referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Suryanarayana vs. State of Karnataka (2001) where it was held that evidence of a child witness cannot be rejected per se, but the Court, as a rule of prudence, was required to consider such evidence with close scrutiny.

The Court held, “For the reasons discussed hereinabove, this Court gives benefit of doubt to the appellant and set aside his conviction under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 as well as sentenced imposed on him by the impugned judgment.”

Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and directed his release.

Cause Title: Promud Yadav v. State of Assam & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:3746)