The Gauhati High Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Mitali Thakuria, upheld the conviction of a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for raping a minor girl. The court emphasized the importance of the victim’s testimony in such cases, even in the absence of corroborating medical evidence.
Case Background
The appellant was convicted by the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dhubri in Special Case No.81/2019 under Sections 376AB/506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 of IPC, to run concurrently.
The case was based on an FIR lodged by the victim’s mother, stating that the appellant, who was the grand uncle of the victim, had raped her 10-year-old daughter in his bedroom. The victim informed her mother about the incident and the threat of death made by the appellant if she disclosed it to anyone.
Important Legal Issues
The main legal issues were:
1. Whether the victim’s testimony alone was sufficient for conviction in the absence of corroborating medical evidence
2. Whether the medical report conclusively ruled out the possibility of rape
3. Whether the alleged land dispute between the families was a motive for fabricating the case against the appellant
Court Observations
The court observed that the only evidence against the appellant was the testimony of the victim, who categorically stated that he had raped her. The medical report did not conclusively rule out the possibility of rape, as the doctor had not examined the victim’s hymen and only mentioned redness in the vulva, which could have been caused by external pressure.
The court relied on Supreme Court rulings which held that a conviction can be based solely on the victim’s testimony if it is found to be reliable and trustworthy, and that medical jurisprudence is not an exact science.
The court also noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the victim had been tutored or that the case was fabricated due to a land dispute, as alleged by the appellant.
The Gauhati High Court upheld the conviction, relying primarily on the victim’s testimony, which was found to be reliable and trustworthy despite the lack of corroborating medical evidence.
