The Gauhati High Court recently delivered a detailed judgment explaining how criminal courts assess evidence, especially in serious allegations. The ruling highlights that suspicion or incomplete proof cannot replace clear and reliable evidence when deciding guilt.
Background of the Case
The case involved an appeal filed by Fakrul Islam against his conviction by a Sessions Court in Assam. He had been sentenced to 10 years in prison under the POCSO Act based on allegations made by a minor girl.
The prosecution claimed that the incident occurred in February 2018 when the girl was alone at home. A complaint was filed about a week later after discussions at the village level did not lead to any resolution.
Read also:- Uttarakhand HC Sets Aside Rape Convictions, Frees Accused Over Weak Forensic Chain
During the trial, several witnesses were examined, including the girl, her parents, and the doctor who conducted the medical examination.
Key Legal Issues Before the Court
1. Determination of Age
One of the most important questions was whether the girl was legally a minor. The Court noted that her age was assessed only through medical examination, which estimated it between 16 and 18 years.
The judge explained that such medical estimation is not exact and can vary by up to two years. Because of this uncertainty, the Court held that the benefit must go to the accused, and the special provisions of the POCSO Act could not be applied.
Read also:- Advocate Entitled to Single Vote Despite Multiple Memberships: Calcutta High Court
2. Delay in Filing the FIR
The Court examined the delay of about seven days in filing the complaint. While delays can sometimes occur in sensitive matters, the explanation given in this case was not supported by independent evidence.
“The prosecution could not prove that any village meeting actually took place,” the Court noted, pointing out that no neutral witness was presented to confirm this claim.
3. Consistency of Testimony
The Court placed strong emphasis on consistency in statements. It found that the version given by the girl in court differed from her earlier statement before the Magistrate.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Refuses Protection to Live-In Couple Without Divorce, Says No Right to Seek Mandamus
Such differences were considered significant. The Court observed that when testimony changes on key facts, it becomes unsafe to rely on it without strong supporting evidence.
4. Role of Supporting Witnesses
Some witnesses who were expected to support the prosecution did not confirm the allegations during trial. This weakened the case further.
The Court also noted that no independent witness, such as the village head mentioned in the complaint, was examined.
5. Medical Evidence
The medical report did not show signs of recent injury or assault. While this alone is not decisive, the Court considered it important in the overall evaluation of evidence.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Orders 10-Year Jail in Rape Facilitation Case, Rejects Plea for Leniency
The High Court explained that criminal law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. This means the evidence must be clear, consistent, and convincing.
“The case shows inconsistencies and gaps which create reasonable doubt,” the Court observed while analyzing the record.
The judge also stressed that courts cannot rely on assumptions or fill gaps in evidence through speculation.
After reviewing all aspects, the Gauhati High Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
The appeal was allowed, and the accused was directed to be released. The Court concluded that the evidence presented was not strong enough to sustain a conviction under criminal law.
Case Title: Fakrul Islam vs State of Assam & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2023 (Crl.A./110/2023)
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
Decision Date: 27 March 2026
