Guwahati: Emphasizing the need for a sensitive and child-friendly approach in cases involving sexual offences against minors, the Gauhati High Court has set aside the conviction of a man sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under the POCSO Act. The Court observed that "serious deficiencies" in the police investigation and material inconsistencies in the victim's testimony made it unsafe to sustain the conviction.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Kaushik Goswami noted that despite the victim using the term "bad act" in her initial statements, the investigating agencies failed to provide psychological counseling or appoint a support person to help the child articulate the incident clearly.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an FIR lodged in July 2023 by the father of a 14-year-old girl. It was alleged that the accused, the victim's cousin, lured her to his house and committed rape. The trial court at Morigaon convicted the accused under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, sentencing him to 20 years in jail and a fine of ₹10,000.

The appellant challenged this conviction before the High Court, arguing that the medical evidence did not support the theory of sexual assault and that the victim’s statements were inconsistent across different stages of the legal process.

Key Observations by the High Court

1. Evolution of Testimony and Lack of "Sterling Quality"

The Court scrutinized the statements made by the victim before the Police (Section 161 CrPC), the Magistrate (Section 164 CrPC), and the Trial Court. It found that in her earliest versions, the girl only mentioned a "bad act" or that the accused "held her hand." She did not allege penetration or sexual intercourse until the trial stage.

The Bench remarked:

"The omission of the core ingredients of the offence of sexual penetrative assault... in the earliest judicial statement assumes significance. During the trial, she described repeated penetrative acts, bleeding, and pain. This is a substantial improvement on the foundational aspect of penetration."

Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that for a conviction to be based on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, the evidence must be of "sterling quality"—meaning it should be consistent, natural, and free from material contradictions. In this case, the testimony failed to meet that standard.

2. Conflict Between Medical and Oral Evidence

The medical examination performed by the Medical Officer (PW-8) revealed that the victim’s hymen was intact and there were no external or internal injuries. While the victim claimed she bled during the first incident, the doctor clarified that in a girl of her age, a sexual assault would typically leave physical traces or injuries.

The Court noted that while medical evidence is not always a prerequisite for a POCSO conviction, it gains significant weight when the oral testimony of the victim is doubtful or filled with inconsistencies.

3. Failure to Appoint Support Person and Counselors

One of the most critical parts of the judgment focused on the procedural lapses by the investigating team. Under the POCSO framework, child victims are entitled to emotional and psychological support.

The Court expressed dissatisfaction, stating:

"The record does not indicate that the child was provided psychological counselling or emotional support to enable her to narrate the incident in a clear and comfortable manner... Failure to provide such assistance defeats the very purpose of the child-friendly procedures contemplated under the Act."

4. Gross Negligence: Mixing Case Diaries

In a startling discovery, the High Court noticed that the Trial Court Records contained documents and case diaries from a completely unrelated POCSO case involving a different accused from a different police station. The Bench termed this a "serious deficiency" and directed the trial court to return the wrong records to the concerned police station.

The Verdict

The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts of the case beyond reasonable doubt. It reminded the state that "suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof."

The Bench held:

"Criminal conviction cannot rest on conjectures or on a part of testimony which is itself doubtful... The testimony of the prosecutrix also does not inspire confidence and falls short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment dated June 7, 2024, and ordered the immediate release of the appellant.

Directions for Reform

Before parting with the case, the Court issued a call to action for the state’s investigating agencies. It emphasized that investigating officers must be sensitized and trained to:

Adopt truly child-friendly procedures.
Ensure mandatory counseling for victims.
Appoint support persons as envisioned by the POCSO Act.
Record specific statements to ensure the "truth emerges without ambiguity."
Case Title: Md. Shah Alam v. The State of Assam & Anr.
Case No: CRL.A(J) No. 87 of 2024
Date of Judgment: February 4, 2026