The Gauhati High Court has set aside a trial court's conviction in a POCSO case, granting the accused benefit of doubt after finding that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's age and that her testimony did not meet the "sterling quality" standard required in such cases.
A division bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Rajesh Mazumdar pronounced the verdict on 23 June 2026, allowing the appeal filed by Litan Saha against his conviction by a POCSO court in Kamrup (M).
Background of the Case
The case dates back to August 2021, when an FIR was lodged by the then Chairperson of the Assam State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. The complaint alleged that the appellant had been committing sexual assault on his stepdaughter for several years. The matter came to light after the family's landlord and his wife learned of it and approached child welfare authorities.
A trial court in Kamrup (M) had convicted Saha under Section 376(2)(n)/376(AB) of the IPC along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine.
Before the High Court, the appellant's counsel argued that there was no reliable proof the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence, and that her evidence lacked consistency on key points. The defence also pointed out that no DNA or forensic report linked the appellant to the spermatozoa found during the victim's medical examination.
The prosecution, on the other hand, maintained that the victim's account had remained largely consistent and that minor variations in her statements were natural and did not weaken the case.
Court's Observations
The bench noted that the trial court had relied solely on an Aadhaar card produced by the victim to determine her age, without it ever being formally proved or exhibited as evidence. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, the bench reiterated that school certificates or municipal birth records take precedence over other documents in determining a minor's age, and an Aadhaar card alone cannot serve that purpose.
The bench observed,
"the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the basic fact that the victim was a minor at the time when she was allegedly raped by the accused immediately before the lodging of the FIR."
On the reliability of the victim's testimony, the court pointed to a discrepancy between her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC and her evidence in court regarding when a witness allegedly saw the incident. The bench held that such a gap could not be brushed aside as a minor inconsistency, since it directly affected the credibility of her account on a key point.
The judges also referred to several Supreme Court precedents, including Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Nirmal Premkumar v. State of T.N., which lay down that a victim's sole testimony can support a conviction only if it is consistent and free of doubt. The bench found that the evidence in this case did not meet that threshold.
It further noted that the medical examination, though it found signs of recent sexual activity, was never linked to the appellant through any DNA test, and the investigating agency made no effort to establish that connection.
The Decision
The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment dated 9 February 2024 and acquitted Litan Saha, granting him the benefit of doubt.
The bench ordered his release from custody, unless he was wanted in any other case, and directed that the trial court records be returned and the order communicated to jail authorities.
Case Details
Case Title: Litan Saha vs The State of Assam
Case Number: CRL.A(J)/127/2024
Judges: Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Rajesh Mazumdar
Decision Date: 23 June 2026
-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)