Assam: Gauhati High Court overturns POCSO conviction citing lack of corroboration in victim's testimony

The Gauhati High Court has set aside the conviction of a man under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, challenging a trial court's decision in Karbi Anglong. The High Court granted the accused the benefit of the doubt, asserting that the testimony of the victim lacked credibility and remained uncorroborated.

A single-judge bench at the Gauhati High Court made this decision, highlighting the absence of conclusive evidence indicating forceful sexual intercourse. The court pointed out that the medical examination failed to suggest any recent instance of the victim being subjected to such an act.

Moreover, the court emphasized the inconsistency and contradiction in the victim's statements during court proceedings compared to her earlier statements recorded under Section 164 and Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The judgment stated, "Considering the fact that the testimony of the victim girl is inconsistent and contradictory, it may not be safe to rely on the sole testimony of the victim to arrive at a finding of guilt against the appellant. As the testimony does not inspire confidence and remains uncorroborated, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt in this case."

The prosecution's case revolved around the informant filing an FIR with the in-charge of Diphu Bazar Town Outpost in Karbi Anglong district. The informant alleged that the accused-appellant had lured the 14-year-old daughter of the informant during a shopping trip.

Based on the FIR, charges were filed under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and a case was registered. The trial court subsequently framed charges under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, leading to the appellant's conviction. He was sentenced to seven years of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000.

The defense, however, argued that the victim's trial testimony significantly differed from her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC. The appellant's counsel also pointed out the lack of corroboration between the victim's testimony and the medical report.