Minor discrepancy in the FIR regarding the body part assaulted does not negate otherwise credible POCSO testimony.

The appellant, a Headmaster of an L.P. School, was prosecuted for allegedly squeezing the breasts of a Class IV student during a Mathematics class.

An FIR was registered as Sivasagar P.S. Case No. 153/2023 under Sections 354/354-A IPC read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

The trial court framed a charge under Section 354 IPC read with Section 10 POCSO, convicted the appellant, and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000, with a default sentence of three months’ rigorous imprisonment.

The victim testified that the appellant squeezed her breasts while checking her notebook, after which she went to the bathroom crying and later disclosed the incident to her family.

Her mother, grandmother, classmates, and other witnesses gave evidence concerning her immediate distress and disclosure.

The prosecution also relied on a pen-drive containing a recorded conversation allegedly reflecting the appellant’s admission, supported by a Section 65-B certificate.

In appeal, the appellant challenged the victim’s credibility, relied on the classmates’ failure to witness or immediately confirm the assault, pointed to an alleged land-mortgage dispute with the informant, and questioned the apparently incorrect seizure date of the pen-drive.

1. Whether the testimony of the victim, read with the surrounding corroborative evidence, was sufficient to establish sexual assault under Section 10 of the POCSO Act beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the discrepancy in the FIR regarding the part of the victim’s body allegedly touched by the appellant materially undermined the prosecution case.

3. Whether the incorrect date recorded in the pen-drive seizure list—24.09.2023 instead of 24.10.2023—rendered the electronic evidence unreliable or otherwise created reasonable doubt.

4. Whether the alleged mortgage-related dispute between the informant and the appellant supplied a sufficient basis to reject the prosecution evidence as falsely motivated.

The Court applied Section 10 of the POCSO Act, which criminalises aggravated sexual assault, together with Section 354 IPC concerning assault or criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty.

It relied on the principle that the credible and consistent testimony of a child victim may, by itself, sustain a conviction, while corroboration may reinforce—but is not necessarily indispensable to—the prosecution case.

The Court further applied the rule that an FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia of the prosecution case, although omission of essential facts may, in an appropriate case, generate suspicion; in this regard, it considered Amar Nath Jha v. Nand Kishore Singh , (2018) 9 SCC 137.

The Court also considered B.N. John v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. , 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 4, concerning the significance of omissions in an FIR relating to the ingredients of an offence.

Minor inconsistencies or discrepancies that do not affect the core prosecution narrative do not justify rejecting otherwise reliable evidence.

The Court found the victim’s account of the appellant squeezing her breasts to be substantially consistent and supported by her immediate emotional distress, her disclosure to her mother and grandmother, and the evidence of classmates who saw her return from the bathroom crying and later complain of chest pain.

The fact that the classmates did not actually see the assault did not discredit the victim, since their attention was directed to their schoolwork and the occurrence was not necessarily visible to them.

The Court treated the informant’s reference in the FIR to the victim’s “guptanga” or private part, rather than her breasts, as an embellishment or divergence concerning the precise body part, but not as a contradiction concerning the occurrence, place, time, or essential nature of the sexual assault.

The discrepancy in the seizure date was explained as a clerical mistake: the seizure list recorded 24.09.2023, whereas the investigating officer stated that the pen-drive was handed over on 24.10.2023, and the Section 65-B certificate recorded the conversation as having been made on 27.09.2023.

These circumstances established that the incorrect date did not precede the occurrence in substance and did not invalidate the prosecution case.

The alleged mortgage dispute was also insufficient to establish false implication, particularly in view of the victim’s direct testimony and the corroborative circumstances.

It held that the prosecution had proved the sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt, that the FIR’s variation regarding the precise body part touched was not material, and that the pen-drive seizure-date discrepancy was a clerical error that did not undermine the case.

The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court’s conviction under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment with a ₹5,000 fine, together with the default sentence of three months’ rigorous imprisonment, were affirmed.