Corroborated testimony of a child victim outweighs minor discrepancies in description of the place of occurrence.

The Appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (read with Section 376AB IPC) for the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of his 7-year-old niece

The victim (PW-3) alleged that while staying at her uncle’s house for four days, the Appellant gagged her and raped her repeatedly over three days

PW-2 (Aunt) noticed the victim bleeding from her private parts upon her return

A medical examination by PW-5 confirmed recent forceful penetration and active bleeding

The Appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the grounds of a discrepancy in the place of occurrence between the victim’s testimony and her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, and a delay in filing the FIR

1. Whether minor discrepancies in the victim’s statements regarding the place of occurrence and a delay in filing the FIR vitiate the prosecution’s case founded on the victim’s testimony and medical evidence

2. Whether the prosecution successfully discharged its burden to trigger the reverse burden of proof under Section 29 of the POCSO Act

The Court applied Section 6 and Section 42 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, alongside Section 376AB of the IPC

It relied on the principle of reverse burden of proof under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which presumes the guilt of the accused once foundational facts are established

Regarding Procedural delays, the Court applied the precedent from State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shree Kant Shekari (2004), which held that delay in an FIR cannot ritualistically discard a rape case if the victim’s testimony is otherwise reliable

The Court found the victim’s (PW-3) testimony to be truthful, consistent, and corroborated by the medical findings of PW-5, who detected "active bleeding" and "forceful penetration"

The Court dismissed the Appellant’s argument regarding the discrepancy in the "place of occurrence" because the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement was never exhibited during trial, nor was the recording Magistrate examined, rendering those contradictions legally irrelevant

Furthermore, the Court noted that the Appellant failed to cross-examine the victim on these points during the trial

The delay in the FIR was deemed adequately explained by the victim’s family’s circumstances and the lockdown

Finally, the Court observed that the Appellant admitted during his Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination that he had been beaten by the Tea Garden Manager following the incident, further supporting the prosecution's narrative

The Court upheld the conviction and the sentence of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act

The appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court Records were ordered to be returned