High Court Acquits Man in POCSO Case Due to Unreliable Testimony and No Medical Evidence
The Gauhati High Court has overturned the conviction of a man who was sentenced under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The court ruled that when a witness gives false testimony, it is no longer safe to rely on their statements to prove guilt.
Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, who heard the appeal, stated that the child victim did not give truthful evidence during the trial. Because of this, her testimony lost its value, and the court could not base a conviction solely on it. The judge also noted that the victim was a minor, and there was a possibility that someone may have influenced or coached her.
The case began when the minor’s father filed a police complaint, alleging that the accused had taken his 7-year-old daughter at night, gagged her mouth, and raped her. The trial court later sentenced the accused to seven years in prison and imposed a fine of ₹10,000 under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
During the appeal, the accused argued that the accusations against him kept changing during the trial. He pointed out that the medical report did not find any signs of recent sexual activity or physical injuries. Even the victim’s hymen was found intact, which raised doubts about the rape claim. The accused also stated that the prosecution failed to provide solid evidence needed to apply the legal presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act.
The prosecution argued that if the victim’s statement seemed truthful, it was enough to convict the accused. They said that small differences between medical reports and statements should not discredit the victim’s words.
However, the High Court found that the victim claimed the accused raped her for about an hour, yet there were no physical signs or injuries to support this. This raised serious concerns about the reliability of her statement.
The court also said that the trial judge wrongly assumed that aggravated sexual assault took place, without proper evidence. It criticized the lower court for ignoring the accused’s side of the story and not fairly considering the defense evidence presented during the trial.
Referring to a past Supreme Court judgment in Suryanarayana vs. State of Karnataka (2001), the High Court stressed that while a child’s statement should not be rejected outright, it must be examined very carefully.
Based on these findings, the Gauhati High Court gave the accused the benefit of doubt, overturned the earlier conviction, and ordered his release.
Case Title: Promud Yadav v. State of Assam & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:3746
