Inconsistency between victim and eyewitness testimony regarding foundational facts precludes conviction under POCSO.

The Appellants (Sanjib and Sasanka Mazumdar) were convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO, Golaghat, for the alleged sexual assault and rape of a 12-year-old girl in 2020.

The prosecution case originated from an FIR filed by the victim’s father (PW-1) on 02.07.2020, following an incident on 24.06.2020 allegedly witnessed by a neighbor (PW-6).

Sasanka was sentenced to 20 years for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, while Sanjib was sentenced to 5 years under Section 8 and 3 years under Section 12.

The Appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of serious contradictions in witness testimonies, medical evidence showing an intact hymen, and a 9-day delay in filing the FIR.

1. Whether the sole testimony of the victim was reliable enough to sustain a conviction despite contradictions with the medical report and eyewitness testimony.

2. Whether the delay of 9 days in lodging the FIR, without satisfactory explanation, and the lack of corroboration by the primary eyewitness (PW-6), created reasonable doubt.

The court applied Section 6 (Aggravated penetrative sexual assault), Section 8 (Sexual assault), and Section 12 (Sexual harassment) of the POCSO Act.

It relied on the principle from State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh that testimony of a sexual assault victim does not necessarily require corroboration, and delay in FIR may be due to social stigma.

The court further referenced Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) regarding the "sterling witness" standard.

Reference was made to R. Shaji v. State of Kerala, which holds that Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements are not substantive evidence but can only be used for corroboration or contradiction.

The court found significant discrepancies between the victim's testimony and the medical findings; the victim alleged repeated intercourse by two adults, yet the medical report showed no injuries and an intact hymen.

Crucially, the primary eyewitness (PW-6), whose observation formed the basis of the FIR, failed to support the rape allegations in her trial testimony, stating instead that the appellant Sasanka was not even present at the scene.

While the court acknowledged that FIR delays are common in sexual offences, it noted that the "bad acts" alleged by the victim were vague and inconsistent across her evidence-in-chief and cross-examination.

Since the prosecution failed to declare PW-6 hostile despite her contradictory testimony, and because the victim’s version lacked the quality of a "sterling witness," the court determined the foundational facts were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The court set aside the judgment dated 07/04/2025, acquitted both appellants of all charges under the POCSO Act, ordered their immediate release, and allowed the appeal.