The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by a man convicted of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 9-year-old girl. The court upheld his 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentence, ruling that the victim's clear courtroom testimony was sufficient to sustain the conviction - even where the medical evidence appeared inconclusive.
The judgment, pronounced on May 26, 2025, was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident in Barpeta district of Assam. The accused, Satish Ray (also referred to as Satish Mandal), was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Barpeta, in Special POCSO Case No. 66/2020. He was found guilty under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 376(AB) of the Indian Penal Code.
The trial court sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000. He challenged this conviction before the Gauhati High Court.
What the Defence Argued
The appellant's counsel, Mr. R. Ali, raised two main challenges.
First, he argued that the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC - a statement made before a Magistrate - used only the words "bad act" to describe what happened. This vague phrase, he argued, could not conclusively prove sexual intercourse took place.
Second, the defence pointed to the medical report. The doctor (PW-6) who examined the victim found her hymen to be intact and noted no injuries on her body. The defence argued this showed no rape had occurred.
Court's Observations
The bench carefully examined both arguments and rejected them.
On the "bad act" question, the court noted the full context of the victim's Section 164 statement. She had described being dragged into a cattle tent, gagged, tied up, and having her clothes removed before the "bad act" was committed. The bench observed that in this context, combined with her direct courtroom testimony where she clearly described the assault, the phrase could not be treated in isolation.
"The issue might have been different if the 'bad act' had been described differently in the evidence," the bench noted, distinguishing the facts from an earlier Gauhati High Court ruling in Shah Alam vs. State of Assam where the victim had stayed silent when asked to clarify the phrase.
On the medical evidence, the court leaned heavily on Supreme Court precedents. Referring to cases including State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Manga Singh (2019) and Wahid Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010), the bench reaffirmed that an intact hymen does not rule out penetration. It also cited the principle from Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar vs. State of Maharashtra that oral testimony takes precedence over medical findings unless the medical evidence completely rules out the occurrence.
The court held that even slight penetration - which the redness and tenderness around the hymen could indicate - is legally sufficient to constitute penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of the POCSO Act.
Decision
The Gauhati High Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's judgment. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of 20 years rigorous imprisonment were upheld. The court also directed that the Amicus Curiae, Mr. S.N. Tamuli, be paid his fees by the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Committee.
Case Details:
Case Title: Satish Ray (Mandal) @ Satish Mandal @ Satish Ch Ray vs. The State of Assam & Anr.
Case Number: Crl.A./267/2023
Bench: Justice Michael Zothankhuma & Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
Decision Date: May 26, 2025
