Reliable dock identification and corroborated medical evidence sustain conviction for gang rape of a minor.

On March 9, 2015, the minor victim (aged 13-14) and her cousin (PW-4) were returning from a ration shop in Karimganj when they were accosted by three/four individuals

The cousin escaped to inform the family, while the victim was forcibly taken into the jungle and gang-raped at knife-point

She was recovered in an unconscious state by her father (PW-5)

An FIR was lodged naming one accused, Basir Uddin, while the others were unidentified at the time

Following investigation, the appellants (Basir Uddin and Ramjul Hussain) and two minors were charge-sheeted

On December 9, 2019, the Sessions Judge, Karimganj, convicted the appellants under Section 376D of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing them to imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives

The appellants challenged this conviction primarily on the grounds of defective identification procedures and false implication

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established the victim’s status as a minor at the time of the commission of the offence

2. Whether the identity of the appellants as the perpetrators was proved beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the validity of the Test Identification Parade (TIP) and dock identification

3. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix, corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitness accounts, was sufficient to sustain a conviction for gang rape

Section 376D of the IPC regarding gang rape and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, concerning aggravated penetrative sexual assault

Evidentiary presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which shift the burden to the accused once foundational facts are proven

Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act and the principles established in Mulla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which hold that TIP is a corroborative tool while dock identification is substantive evidence

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master, affirming that an FIR is not an encyclopedia and need not contain every minute detail

The court found the victim’s minority established through medical opinion (PW-10) and her own statements, placing her age between 13-14 years

Regarding the commission of the crime, the court held that the victim’s testimony (PW-3) was consistent, cogent, and strongly corroborated by the medical report (Exbt-10), which noted physical violence, labial lacerations, and the presence of spermatozoa

The court dismissed challenges to the identification of the appellants, noting that Basir Uddin was previously known to the victim as a laborer, while Ramjul Hussain was identified across three rounds of a TIP conducted by a Magistrate (PW-9) within a month of the incident

The court rejected the defense theory of false implication due to a cattle dispute, finding it unconvincing and unsupported by evidence

The court clarified that the non-mention of a fourth person (who was present but did not participate) in the FIR did not vitiate the prosecution’s case, as the core allegations remained unshaken

The court upheld the conviction of both appellants under Section 376D IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act

Regarding the sentence, the court refused to show leniency given the heinous nature of the crime and the lifelong trauma inflicted upon the child victim, thereby confirming the sentence of life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives and a fine of Rs. 50,000 each

Both appeals were dismissed