Gauhati HC Upholds 20-Year POCSO Sentence, Says Child’s Failure To Resist Did Not Discredit Her Account

The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, Golaghat, under Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), for sexually assaulting the informant’s minor daughter, and sentenced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000.

The prosecution case was that the appellant assaulted the victim in her home while her parents were away; the victim’s younger sister was also said to have witnessed the incident.

The victim’s age was supported by the municipal birth register, which recorded her date of birth as 28 August 2008.

The appellant appealed, challenging the credibility of the prosecution evidence, relying on inconsistencies between the victim and her sister, and alleging false implication arising from a tea-garden lease dispute.

The Court reviewed the conviction under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act.

It assessed the victim’s testimony in light of the evidence as a whole, including her prior statements, medical evidence and the official birth record.

The Court applied the principles that variations in a witness’s account do not necessarily render it unreliable, and that a victim’s failure to offer physical resistance or raise an alarm is not, by itself, a reason to reject her testimony.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court found no material omission or contradiction between the victim’s testimony and her statements to the police and Magistrate.

It treated the discrepancies in the younger sister’s account as immaterial because the trial court had already found that witness tutored and unreliable.

The victim’s failure to resist or immediately inform neighbours did not discredit her account, given her age and the absence of any fixed rule requiring active resistance.

The birth register, proved by the relevant official, established that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident.

The alleged lease dispute did not establish false implication: the specific account given by the defence witness had not been put to the informant in cross-examination, and the medical evidence supported the victim’s account.