Materially inconsistent victim testimony, lacking corroboration, cannot sustain a POCSO conviction.

The appellant challenged the judgment dated 14.03.2022 of the Special Judge, Nalbari, in Special (P) Case No. 15 of 2019.

The prosecution alleged that on 10.12.2018, the appellant intercepted the 12-year-old victim while she was returning from depositing a Bandhan Bank instalment, forcibly dragged her into his house, kissed her, allegedly inserted his tongue into her mouth, photographed or videotaped the incident, and threatened to kill her if she disclosed it.

The FIR was registered under Sections 354/387 IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act; the trial court framed charges under Sections 354/506 IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

Eight prosecution witnesses were examined, including the victim, her mother, the medical officer and the Investigating Officer.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354 IPC, sentencing him to an aggregate of eight years’ imprisonment because the sentences were directed to run consecutively.

Whether the victim’s testimony, read with the supporting evidence, was sufficiently consistent, reliable and trustworthy to sustain the appellant’s conviction under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354 IPC.

Whether the prosecution established the foundational facts necessary to attract the statutory presumption under the POCSO Act.

Whether the alleged contradictions and omissions regarding the manner of assault, insertion of the tongue, photographs and video, and the mother’s alleged extra-judicial confession created reasonable doubt requiring acquittal.

The Court applied Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, concerning sexual assault, and Section 354 IPC concerning assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty.

It considered the statutory presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which operates only after the prosecution establishes the foundational facts of the alleged offence.

The Court reiterated that a victim’s testimony may by itself sustain a conviction in a sexual-offence case, but it must be reliable, consistent and confidence-inspiring; where it is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, corroboration is required.

Relying principally on Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2008) 12 SCC 81, the Court held that a “sterling witness” must give a consistent, natural and unassailable account from the initial statement through the trial, with the core version supported by the surrounding evidence.

The Court also applied the principles governing material omissions and contradictions in statements recorded during investigation and trial.

The Court found that the victim’s account materially varied across her statements.

Before the Police, she stated that the appellant forcibly dragged her inside, kissed her, took photographs and recorded a video, but did not mention insertion of his tongue into her mouth.

In her Section 164 CrPC statement, she added that the appellant inserted his tongue into her mouth and forced her to kiss him, but omitted the alleged photographs, video and request that she visit him regularly.

At trial, she gave a different account of how she was taken inside, stated that the appellant inserted his tongue into her mouth, but denied that any video had been recorded; the alleged photographic or video evidence was also never produced or seized.

The mother’s evidence did not reliably corroborate the victim because she claimed that the appellant confessed and showed her photographs and videos, whereas the victim did not mention any such confession or showing of electronic material, despite accompanying her mother to the appellant’s house.

The other neighbours were substantially hearsay witnesses and did not establish the alleged sexual assault.

The medical evidence neither corroborated nor materially disproved the alleged kissing incident, as the case was not one of penetrative sexual assault; the absence of injuries therefore had limited relevance.

Since the victim was not found to be a sterling witness and the prosecution lacked dependable corroboration, the Court held that the foundational facts were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the statutory presumption could not sustain the conviction.

The Gauhati High Court held that the material inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and the absence of reliable corroboration created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case.

The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.03.2022 was set aside and quashed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

The interim bail order was vacated, the bail bonds were discharged, and the Trial Court Record was directed to be returned.