Sole testimony of prosecutrix must be of sterling quality to sustain conviction in sexual offence cases.

The appellant, a married volleyball coach, was accused of taking a 15-year-old student (Miss ‘X’) to Guwahati on 24.07.2023 under the pretext of a volleyball selection match

The victim’s father lodged an FIR after she failed to return.

The accused surrendered at the police station with the victim on 01.08.2023

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 366 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment

During the trial, the victim (PW-1) alleged sexual assault occurred in a rented room at Lanka, though her prior statement under Section 164 CrPC alleged the act occurred in Guwahati

Medical evidence showed a ruptured hymen but no signs of recent sexual intercourse or external injury

The birth certificate relied upon by the trial court was found to be procedurally defective (date of issue preceding registration), and a subsequent ossification test estimated the victim's age between 18–20 years

1. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix qualifies as "sterling witness" testimony sufficient to sustain a conviction for sexual assault

2. Whether the prosecution successfully established the minority of the victim at the time of the incident to attract the provisions of the POCSO Act

3. Whether the charge of kidnapping under Section 366 IPC is sustainable given the parental consent for the victim’s travel

The court primarily applied Section 6 of the POCSO Act regarding aggravated penetrative sexual assault and Section 366 of the IPC regarding kidnapping

It relied on the evidentiary principle from Section 134 of the Evidence Act that evidence is weighed, not counted, and that a conviction can rest on the sole testimony of a victim if it is trustworthy

The court followed the "sterling witness" doctrine established in Rai Sandeep v. State of NCT Delhi, which requires a witness’s version to be unassailable, consistent, and free from prevarication

Furthermore, it considered the application of the margin of error in medical age determination as discussed in Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Govt. of J&K

The Court found that the prosecutrix's testimony failed the "sterling witness" test due to material inconsistencies between her Section 164 CrPC statement and her trial deposition regarding the location and circumstances of the alleged assault

Crucially, the Court noted that the victim's conduct was inconsistent with that of a victim of sexual assault; she testified to visiting restaurants three times a day with the appellant during the period of alleged captivity without raising any alarm to the public or her family via phone

The medical evidence was inconclusive, as the ruptured hymen could be attributed to sports (volleyball), and the MO found no signs of violence

Regarding the age of the victim, the Court observed that the birth certificate was inherently unreliable due to chronological errors in its issuance

When coupled with the ossification report (18–20 years), the minority of the victim was not cogently proved

Finally, the kidnapping charge was negated by the fact that the appellant had obtained the father's permission to take the victim to Guwahati

The Gauhati High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO, Morigaon

The appellant was acquitted of all charges under Section 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and ordered to be set at liberty forthwith