The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by a man convicted under the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a six-year-old girl in Kamrup district. A division bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Rajesh Mazumdar upheld the trial court's 2023 judgment, rejecting arguments that the case was fabricated over a liquor business dispute.
Background of the Case
The case goes back to March 2018, when a mother in Khetri, Kamrup, left her two children at her neighbour's house while she took her own mother to hospital. When she returned that night to collect her son and daughter, her daughter broke down in tears and told her that the neighbour had assaulted her.
The mother immediately called the police emergency number. A General Diary Entry was made first, followed by a written FIR the same night. The girl was sent for a medical examination at Guwahati Medical College and Hospital, and her statement was later recorded before a magistrate under Section 164 CrPC.
Following investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The trial court convicted him in July 2023, leading to the present appeal before the High Court.
Arguments from the Defence
The appellant's senior counsel raised two main points. First, he argued that the GDE not the later written FIR should have been treated as the actual FIR, relying on an earlier Gauhati High Court ruling on this point. Second, he claimed the entire case was concocted because the accused and other villagers had asked the complainant to stop selling local liquor in the village.
The defence also pointed out that the mother, in her testimony, had only spoken of her daughter's breast being touched, while the child's own evidence in court went much further. This gap, the defence argued, suggested tutoring. Three defence witnesses the accused's mother, wife and sister testified that the family had quarrelled with the complainant that night and that the allegation followed a dispute, not an actual assault.
What the Prosecution Said
The Additional Public Prosecutor and the legal aid counsel for the victim countered that the mobile call was too vague to qualify as a proper FIR on its own, and that the written FIR filed soon after caused no prejudice to the accused. They also argued that the medical findings redness, tenderness and congestion noted by the examining doctor supported the child's account, even though her hymen was found intact.
Court's Observations
On the FIR issue, the bench held that the initial mobile call only mentioned that a rape had occurred in the village, without any further detail, and could not by itself be treated as a valid FIR. Since the written FIR's contents had been placed before the trial court and the informant herself was examined as a witness, the judges found no prejudice to the accused on this count.
Turning to the medical and testimonial evidence, the bench noted that an intact hymen does not rule out penetrative assault, citing settled Supreme Court precedent that any degree of penetration is sufficient in law. The court also weighed in on how defence evidence should be treated, observing that witnesses for the accused deserve equal scrutiny and respect, not automatic suspicion — but added that this principle alone does not make their account convincing.
The bench observed that the testimony of the defence witnesses, who were close relatives of the accused, did not establish his innocence, and pointed out that none of the neighbours referred to in their statements were actually produced to support the claim.
On the child's evidence, the judges said they found nothing to suggest she had been coached, noting she had stopped visiting the accused's house after the incident and had no apparent reason to invent such an account. They added that her statement before the magistrate matched her later courtroom testimony, and that the medical findings were consistent with what she had described.
The bench also rejected the liquor-business theory as a motive for a false case, observing that the accused's own wife had accompanied the complainant to the hospital that very night something unlikely if real hostility existed between the two families.
The Decision
Finding no grounds to interfere with the trial court's findings, the Gauhati High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
The court also directed that the legal aid counsel representing the child victim be paid her fees by the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Committee.
Case Details:
Case Title: Pulak Deka vs. The State of Assam and Anr.
Case Number: Crl.A./342/2023
Judges: Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Rajesh Mazumdar
Decision Date: 19 June 2026
