Conviction Sustained: Consistent Victim Testimony Corroborated by Immediate Bystander Evidence Establishes Sexual Assault and Outraging Modesty

While the victim (a minor) was walking home from Nellie Bazaar, the Appellant restrained her, caught her wrist and chest, uttered obscene sexual demands, and attempted to pull her into the Salbagan jungle

Witness PW-2 (Tapan Deka) observed the struggle and reported it to the Nellie Police Outpost, leading to the Appellant’s apprehension

The Trial Court sentenced the Appellant to 5 years R.I. under Section 354 IPC, 4 years R.I. under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and a fine under Section 341 IPC

The Appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of unreliable testimony, lack of medical evidence, and a purported monetary dispute with the victim's family

1. Whether the uncorroborated testimony of the minor victim and the available circumstantial evidence were sufficient to sustain a conviction under Sections 341/354 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act

2. Whether the prosecution successfully established the minority of the victim at the time of the occurrence to invoke the POCSO Act

The Court primarily applied Section 341 (wrongful restraint) and Section 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code, alongside Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which define and penalize sexual assault

The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex and that the culpable intention of the accused is the crux of Section 354 IPC, regardless of the victim's physical reaction (State of Punjab v. Major Singh (AIR 1967 SC 63))

The solitary testimony of a prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction if found cogent

The Court found the testimony of PW-1 (victim) to be consistent across her trial deposition and her Section 164 Cr.PC statement regarding the Appellant’s actions

This was bolstered by PW-2, an independent eyewitness who observed the Appellant dragging the victim toward the jungle

The Court dismissed the defense's "monetary dispute" theory, noting that the Appellant admitted in his Section 313 examination that he did not know the victim's mother

Regarding the absence of medical evidence, the Court reasoned that in non-penetrative sexual assault cases, the victim's oral testimony carries primary weight

Finally, the Court affirmed the victim's minority based on her birth certificate and HSLC admit card, which showed she was approximately 16-17 years old at the time of the offence

The Court upheld the conviction under Sections 341/354 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, finding no infirmity in the Trial Court's judgment. The appeal was dismissed.