Patna High Court upholds 15-year POCSO sentence for constable convicted of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy on a train

The appellant, a railway police constable, was prosecuted on the allegation that on 8 November 2015 he assaulted a 14-year-old boy inside the bathroom of the Mithila Express, forcibly removed his clothes, and committed penetrative sexual acts upon him.

The appellant was charged under Sections 323, 341 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, and subsequently under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”) after the victim’s minority became relevant during trial.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 323, 341 and 377 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to fifteen years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine under Section 6 POCSO, with concurrent sentences for the IPC offences.

Whether the testimony of the victim was sufficiently credible and corroborated to sustain the appellant’s conviction under Sections 323, 341 and 377 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act?

Whether the prosecution case failed because of inconsistencies in the victim’s statements, hostile witnesses, absence of the victim’s medical examination report, and failure to conduct the appellant’s medical examination under Section 53-A CrPC?

Whether the FSL report could be relied upon when it was not properly exhibited and was not put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 CrPC?

Whether the victim’s age and the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act supported the prosecution case?

The Court applied Sections 323, 341 and 377 IPC concerning voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful restraint and unnatural offences, respectively, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act concerning aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

It relied on the victim’s testimony as substantive evidence, holding that a credible and trustworthy victim’s evidence can sustain conviction when it inspires confidence and is supported by surrounding circumstances.

The Court also considered Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, under which presumptions arise regarding commission of specified POCSO offences and the existence of culpable mental state once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts.

Under Section 293 CrPC, scientific reports may be received in evidence in the prescribed manner; however, a document not properly exhibited and not put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC cannot be relied upon against him.

The Court found the victim’s account to be natural, consistent and substantially corroborated by the surrounding circumstances.

The evidence established that the appellant was part of the railway escort party, remained on the train when the escort party disembarked, was later found at Madhupur with his official rifle, and was taken into custody after the victim complained that a constable had sexually assaulted him.

The victim’s age was adequately proved through the school records, and the defence did not materially challenge that evidence.

The Court held that the absence of the full medical examination report did not discredit the victim’s testimony; the doctor’s evidence regarding the anal swab was considered as part of the record, although it did not itself establish the occurrence.

The hostile testimony of some police witnesses was not treated as fatal because other evidence, particularly the victim’s testimony and the evidence regarding the appellant’s presence and apprehension, remained reliable.

However, the FSL report was expressly discarded because it had not been properly exhibited and had not been put to the appellant in his Section 313 CrPC examination.

Even without relying on the FSL report, the Court held that the remaining evidence proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt and that the defence had failed to create a reasonable doubt.

The Court further held that the improperly exhibited FSL report could not be relied upon, but its exclusion did not affect the outcome.

Finding no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and concurrent sentences imposed under Sections 323, 341 and 377 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

A copy of the judgment and the trial court records was directed to be transmitted to the trial court.