The Gauhati High Court has set aside the conviction and life imprisonment of an appellant in a POCSO case after finding a significant contradiction between the alleged date of rape and the medical evidence concerning the victim’s pregnancy.
A Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Shamima Jahan held that the prosecution had failed to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond the evidence available on record.
Background Of The Case
The appellant had challenged a judgment dated April 22, 2025, passed by the Special Judge, Udalguri, in Special (POCSO) Case No. 32/2022. The trial court had convicted him under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and imposed rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of ₹20,000.
The prosecution case was that the alleged incident took place on April 11, 2017. The victim stated that she became pregnant as a result of the incident.
However, when the victim was medically examined on October 18, 2017, an ultrasound showed a live foetus measuring 35 weeks and two days. The High Court noted that this placed the pregnancy around February 2017, approximately two months before the alleged incident.
Court's Observation
The Bench found the medical evidence difficult to reconcile with the prosecution's version that the pregnancy resulted from the alleged incident of April 11.
The Court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that the appellant had assaulted the victim on any other date that could explain the pregnancy.
“When the medical evidence with regard to the live foetus proved that the victim had become pregnant in February, 2017, her testimony that she had been raped by the appellant in April, 2017, which led to her being pregnant, turns out to be false.”
The Court also considered evidence regarding a proposed DNA test. The record showed that the appellant had sought DNA testing, but the test could not establish paternity because the available blood samples were insufficient for a proper finding.
Decision
The High Court ultimately held that the prosecution had not proved the appellant’s guilt and found the trial court's judgment unsustainable.
“Consequently, the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The appellant is accordingly acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.”
The appeal was allowed, and the Court directed that the appellant be released from judicial custody immediately if he was not required in any other case.
Case Details
Case Title: B. B. vs. State of Assam
Case Number: Crl.A./296/2025
Judges: Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Shamima Jahan
Decision Date: August 21, 2026
