Minor Discrepancies in Charge Particulars Do Not Vitiate Trial Absent Proof of Prejudice

The Appellant was accused of enticing a five-year-old boy into his shop with chocolates on December 6, 2020, and committing penetrative sexual assault.

The victim’s mother (PW-2) discovered the injury when the child experienced bleeding and pain while passing stool.

Medical examination of the victim revealed multiple anal tears, and examination of the Appellant showed a circular abrasion on his penis.

The Trial Court (Special Judge, POCSO, Kamrup) convicted the Appellant under Section 377 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The Appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of an incorrect time of occurrence mentioned in the charge and alleged false implication due to a financial dispute.

1. Whether the discrepancy regarding the time of occurrence mentioned in the formal charge is a material irregularity that vitiates the trial.

2. Whether the conviction can be sustained based primarily on the testimony of a child victim supported by medical evidence.

Section 3 of the POCSO Act (definition of penetrative sexual assault) and Section 6 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault).

The principle that defects in framing charges do not vitiate a trial under the Cr.P.C. unless they occasion a "failure of justice" or cause "prejudice" to the accused.

Chittaranjan Das v. State of West Bengal and Sandeep Yadav v. Satish and Ors.

The doctrine that the testimony of a child victim, if found credible and of sterling quality, does not require corroboration for conviction.

The court found the child victim’s (PW-1) testimony to be cogent and consistent, describing the assault in detail.

Although the charge stated the time as 7:00 PM and the evidence suggested 1:00 PM, the court determined this discrepancy was curable because the charge-sheet mentioned the 1:00 PM timing, and the Appellant suffered no prejudice in his defense.

The court rejected the Appellant's defense of a "loan dispute" under Section 313 Cr.P.C. because no such suggestion was put to the mother (PW-2) during cross-examination, nor was the victim challenged on being "tutored".

Furthermore, the medical evidence (anal tears in the victim and penile abrasion on the Appellant) strongly supported the victim's version.

The court held that (1) an incorrect mention of the time of occurrence in a charge does not vitiate trial absent proof of prejudice, and (2) the victim's testimony was of "sterling quality" and sufficient to sustain the conviction when supported by medical findings of sexual assault.

The Appellant was ordered to undergo the remainder of his sentence.