Section 4 POCSO Act | Child Victim Testimony Alone Sufficient for Conviction Despite Intoxication and Minor Inconsistencies : Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court recently dismissed a criminal appeal, upholding the conviction and 18-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of an appellant under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The judgment reaffirms that the testimony of a child victim, if cogent and confidence-inspiring, requires no corroboration, and minor inconsistencies cannot discredit a prosecution case where the core facts remain unshaken.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Sh. Lalsangzela, was convicted by the Special Court (POCSO), Champhai, in SC No. 57/2017 for committing penetrative sexual assault on a 12-year-old girl under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The incident occurred on the night of 01.01.2017, when the appellant entered the victim’s house, raped her while she was asleep, and later sought forgiveness from her parents. The appellant appealed the conviction, contending that his intoxication rendered him unable to recall the incident and that the victim’s testimony was inconsistent.

Key Facts

• The victim, born on 26.09.2004, was 12 years and 8 months old at the time of the incident.
• On 01.01.2017 at around 10:00 PM, the appellant and his friend, Zonunmawia, entered the victim’s house, which had an unlocked door.
• The appellant gagged the victim’s mouth, pulled down her underwear, and committed penetrative sexual assault.
• The victim’s mother (PW-2) witnessed the appellant lying on top of the victim with his jeans shorts unzipped and slapped him.
• The appellant fled but returned shortly thereafter to beg for forgiveness, admitting to having committed a wrong act.
• The victim experienced bleeding in her private parts and blood in her urine, which was preserved as evidence.
• An FIR was filed on 02.01.2017 (CPI-PS Case No. 1/2017), and the appellant was arrested the same day.
• The victim was medically examined (PW-7), who found bruises, lacerations, and blood stains in her genital area, confirming non-intact hymen.

Procedural History

• 02.01.2017: FIR registered under Section 4 POCSO Act.
• Post-investigation: Charge sheet filed; appellant charged under Section 4 POCSO Act.
• Trial Proceedings: The appellant pleaded guilty to entering the victim’s house but denied the assault. The trial court examined 7 prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-8).
• 12.11.2018: Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 18 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000, defaulting to 2 months of simple imprisonment.
• Post-conviction: The appellant filed the present appeal (CRL.A(J)/30/2025) before the Gauhati High Court.

The Parties' Positions

For the Appellant

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the appellant was not given an opportunity to adduce evidence during his examination under Section 313 CrPC.
• The victim’s younger brothers, who were present in the house, were not examined as witnesses, which could have clarified whether the assault occurred.
• The victim’s statement under Section 161 CrPC (that the family slept on the floor) contradicted her deposition in court (that she slept in her parents’ bedroom).
• The victim’s testimony was not sterling due to inconsistencies, and the appellant’s intoxication rendered him unable to recall the incident.

For the Respondents

• The mother of the victim (PW-2) was an eyewitness to the assault, having seen the appellant lying on top of the victim with his jeans unzipped.
• The appellant admitted to entering the victim’s house and later sought forgiveness, corroborating the victim’s account.
• The appellant’s statement during Section 313 CrPC that he consumed 6-7 glasses of liquor and could not recall his actions did not amount to an alibi.
• The medical evidence (PW-7) confirmed injuries consistent with penetrative sexual assault, including bleeding and a non-intact hymen.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought acquittal, contending that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony and lack of corroboration.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the testimony of a child victim under the POCSO Act, if cogent and confidence-inspiring, requires corroboration, and whether minor inconsistencies in her statement can discredit the prosecution case when the core facts remain unchallenged.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

• Relied on Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 162 CrPC to argue that the victim’s inconsistencies should have been confronted during cross-examination.
• Contended that the non-examination of the victim’s younger brothers as witnesses prejudiced the appellant’s defense.
• Argued that the appellant’s intoxication rendered him incapable of recalling the incident, casting doubt on his culpability.

For the Respondents

• Relied on Ganesan v. State ((2020) 10 SCC 573), which held that the testimony of a child victim of sexual assault requires no corroboration if it is cogent and confidence-inspiring.
• Emphasized that PW-2 (the victim’s mother) was an eyewitness, and her testimony, along with the victim’s, was corroborated by medical evidence.
• Argued that the appellant’s admission of entering the victim’s house and seeking forgiveness proved his guilt.

The Court's Analysis

The Court conducted a detailed examination of the evidence, focusing on the following key principles:

1. Testimony of Child Victim: The Court relied on Ganesan v. State, holding that the testimony of a child victim of sexual assault, if cogent and confidence-inspiring, requires no corroboration. The Court emphasized that sexual offences are often committed in secrecy, and hyper-technical approaches should not undermine justice.

   "Testimony of a child victim of sexual assault, if cogent and confidence inspiring requires no corroboration and that courts must not follow a hyper technical approach, as sexual offences are committed in secrecy and often without witnesses."

2. Eyewitness Corroboration: The Court noted that PW-2 (the victim’s mother) was an eyewitness to the appellant lying on top of the victim with his jeans unzipped. This, coupled with the victim’s testimony and medical evidence, established a prima facie case of penetrative sexual assault.

3. Appellant’s Admissions: The appellant admitted to entering the victim’s house and later seeking forgiveness, which the Court treated as admissions of guilt. His claim of intoxication was not accepted as an alibi, as it did not negate his presence at the scene.

4. Inconsistencies in Testimony: The Court held that minor inconsistencies in the victim’s statement (e.g., whether the family slept on the floor or in a bedroom) did not go to the core of the issue and could not discredit the prosecution case. The Court relied on Narendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) ((2012) 7 SCC 171), which held that minor contradictions should not undermine an otherwise reliable prosecution case.

   "Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. A prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness."

5. Non-Examination of Witnesses: The Court dismissed the appellant’s argument that the non-examination of the victim’s younger brothers prejudiced his case, holding that no evidence suggested their testimony would have altered the outcome. The appellant had never requested their examination as court witnesses.

6. Opportunity to Adduce Evidence: The Court noted that the trial court had given the appellant an opportunity to adduce defense evidence under Section 243 CrPC, but the appellant declined. The trial court’s order dated 25.10.2018 recorded this, closing the stage for defense evidence.

The Verdict

The Gauhati High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The appellant remains convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and is to undergo 18 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000. In default of fine payment, he shall serve 2 months of simple imprisonment. The Trial Court Record (TCR) was directed to be sent back.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Child Victim Testimony Requires No Corroboration If Cogent

• Practitioners must note that the testimony of a child victim under the POCSO Act, if cogent and confidence-inspiring, requires no corroboration. Courts are not to adopt a hyper-technical approach, as sexual offences are often committed in secrecy.
• Eyewitness testimony (e.g., the victim’s mother in this case) can strengthen the prosecution case, but it is not mandatory if the victim’s testimony is reliable.

Minor Inconsistencies Do Not Discredit Prosecution Case

• Minor contradictions in the victim’s statement (e.g., discrepancies in sleeping arrangements) cannot discredit the prosecution case if they do not go to the core of the issue.
• Courts will appreciate the testimony on the principle of probabilities, treating the victim as any other witness, not as an accomplice.

Intoxication Is Not an Alibi Under POCSO Act

• Intoxication does not absolve an accused under the POCSO Act. The Court held that the appellant’s admission of consuming alcohol and entering the victim’s house did not constitute an alibi.
• Practitioners should avoid relying on intoxication as a defense unless it can be proven that the accused was incapable of forming criminal intent at the time of the offence.

Opportunity to Adduce Evidence Must Be Utilized

• The appellant’s failure to adduce defense evidence when given the opportunity under Section 243 CrPC weakened his case.
• Practitioners must ensure that accused persons utilize opportunities to present evidence, as courts may close the defense stage if no evidence is led.",