The Gauhati High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a Morigaon man who was convicted under the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl. Justice Mitali Thakuria, who heard the matter, ruled that the child victim's account remained consistent throughout the trial and saw no reason to disturb the trial court's findings.
Background of the Case
The case goes back to January 15, 2017. According to the FIR lodged by the victim's mother, the girl was returning home from Madrassa on a bicycle along with her younger sister when the accused, Mansur Ali, allegedly stopped her near a village pond, pulled her under a tree, and sexually assaulted her. The girl managed to escape after raising an alarm, and the matter was reported to police the same day.
A case was registered under various sections of the IPC along with Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. After investigation, the Addl. Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), Morigaon convicted the accused under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 341 IPC, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. He then approached the High Court challenging this conviction.
Counsel for the appellant, Mr. D.K. Bhattacharyya, raised several points to question the prosecution's case. He argued that the medical report showed no injury marks on the victim's body, which he said cast doubt on the allegations. He also pointed out that the victim's younger sister, said to be present at the spot, was never examined as a witness, and that a key witness who allegedly saw the incident later turned hostile.
The defence also flagged what it called inconsistencies in timing the FIR mentioned the incident occurred around 8 AM, while the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded a time of 6 AM. According to the defence, this raised questions about whether the girl could have realistically been returning from Madrassa at that hour in January.
What the Prosecution and Legal Aid Counsel Said
The Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. B. Sarma, countered that the victim's testimony was largely consistent across her statements to police, before the magistrate, and in court, with only a minor discrepancy regarding the time, which he described as not significant enough to affect the case.
Ms. D. Ghosh, the Legal Aid Counsel representing the victim's side, added that Madrassas in the area remain open on Sundays except Fridays, which addressed the timing concern raised by the defence. She also argued that the absence of physical injuries does not automatically mean no sexual assault occurred, citing judicial precedent that victims respond differently to trauma and that there is no single "correct" reaction.
Court's Observations
Justice Thakuria examined the testimonies closely and noted that while three independent witnesses did not support the prosecution's version, the evidence of the mother (PW.1) and the victim (PW.2) remained credible. The Court observed that the minor variation regarding the time of the incident - 6 AM versus 8 AM - did not go to the root of the case, since the victim herself clarified during her testimony that the occurrence took place at 8 AM.
On the medical evidence, the bench observed that the absence of injury marks could not weaken the case since the allegation was not one of penetrative sexual assault, and therefore no injuries on private parts would necessarily be expected.
Addressing the defence's argument about the victim's age, the Court noted that the birth certificate was issued within two months of birth, making it a credible document despite the issuing official not being examined.
The judgment also referred to the legal principle that a child witness's testimony can form the basis of conviction if it inspires confidence, even without corroboration. The bench remarked that there was no material to suggest the child had been tutored or that the family held any grudge against the accused that might explain a false implication.
On the question of presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, the Court held that the prosecution had indeed established the foundational facts of the case, and the defence had failed to rebut this presumption through cross-examination or independent evidence.
Decision
Concluding that the prosecution had proved its case and that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was sound, the Gauhati High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence passed against the accused under the POCSO Act and IPC.
Case Details:
Case Title: Md. Mansur Ali vs. The State of Assam and Anr.
Case Number: Crl.A./21/2024
Judge: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Mitali Thakuria
Decision Date: June 26, 2026
