Case Name: B v. State of Assam

Factual Background

The case arose from an appeal against the judgment of the Special Judge, POCSO, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and sentenced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000. The prosecution case was that the appellant had repeatedly sexually assaulted his adopted daughter, who was approximately 13 years old at the time of the incidents. The victim had allegedly been subjected to sexual assault from around April 2022 and had initially disclosed the incidents to persons in the village after being discouraged by her adoptive mother from reporting the matter. An FIR was subsequently registered under Section 376 IPC read with Section 6 of POCSO.

During trial, the victim testified as a Court Witness after the Investigating Officer had not cited her as a prosecution witness. She consistently stated that the appellant had repeatedly raped her and had threatened and assaulted her when she resisted. Her statement under Section 164 CrPC substantially corroborated her testimony. The prosecution also relied upon her birth certificate, medical evidence and the testimony of other witnesses. The appellant contended that the allegations were fabricated because he had disciplined the victim for refusing to attend school and communicating with a boy. He also challenged the delay in lodging the FIR.

Court’s Analysis

The Gauhati High Court examined whether the delay in lodging the FIR undermined the prosecution case. Relying upon Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, Deepak v. State of Haryana, State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, State of H.P. v. Gian Chand and State of U.P. v. Manoj Kumar Pandey, the Court reiterated that although prompt reporting is ordinarily desirable, delay in sexual-offence cases, particularly where the perpetrator is a relative or trusted person, may be explained by fear, trauma, social circumstances and reluctance to disclose the incident. In the present case, the victim had been allegedly raped by her adopted father and had been told by her mother not to disclose the incident. The Court therefore found the delay understandable and insufficient to discredit her testimony.

The Court also specifically addressed the two-finger test conducted during the medical examination. Although the medical evidence recorded that two fingers could pass through the hymen, the Court noted that the Supreme Court had already condemned the use of the two-finger/pre-vaginum test in Lillu @ Rajesh v. State of Haryana and State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai. The Court reiterated that the test has no scientific basis, violates the privacy, dignity and physical and mental integrity of rape survivors, and that an intact or torn hymen cannot establish or disprove sexual violence. It observed that medical professionals conducting such a test could be guilty of professional misconduct.

The Court ultimately relied upon the victim’s consistent testimony, her Section 164 statement, medical evidence and the evidence regarding the appellant’s extra-judicial confession before villagers. It held that the appellant had failed to rebut the prosecution evidence or establish his theory of false implication.

Order of the Court

The High Court found no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, POCSO. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the trial court judgment was upheld.

Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa