Case: Fakrul Islam v. State of Assam & Anr. (2026)

Factual Background:

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Sections 376/448 IPC and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the accused (uncle of the victim) committed rape on a minor girl in the absence of her parents. The FIR was lodged after a delay of approximately one week, allegedly due to attempts at village settlement (bichar). The prosecution examined seven witnesses including the victim, her parents, medical officer, and investigating officer.

Court’s Analysis:

The High Court found several material inconsistencies and deficiencies in the prosecution case:

1: Age of the Victim:

The age was determined only through medical (ossification) test indicating 16–18 years. The Court held that such evidence is not conclusive and carries a margin of error of ± 2 years. Extending the benefit of doubt, the victim could be above 18 years, thereby making the POCSO Act inapplicable.

2. Delay in FIR:

The FIR was lodged after 7 days. The explanation of village settlement was not supported by any independent witness, making the delay suspicious and unexplained.

3. Contradictions in Victim’s Testimony:

There were material inconsistencies between the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC and her deposition before the Court, particularly regarding the manner and sequence of the alleged incident. Hence, she could not be treated as a “sterling witness”.

4. Lack of Corroboration:

Independent witnesses turned hostile and key witnesses (including village authorities and nearby family members) were not examined. Medical evidence also did not indicate recent sexual assault.

5. Possibility of False Implication:

Evidence indicated prior land disputes between the families and attempts at monetary settlement, raising doubt regarding motive.

7. Overall Reliability:

Due to contradictions, omissions, improbabilities, and lack of corroboration, the prosecution case was held unreliable.

Order of the Court:

The appeal was allowed. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted and directed to be released.

Key Takeaway:

Medical age determination alone is not conclusive, and benefit of doubt must go to the accused. In cases of sexual offences, conviction cannot be sustained where the victim’s testimony is inconsistent and uncorroborated, especially when coupled with unexplained delay and doubtful prosecution evidence.

Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa