Absence Of Bodily Injuries No Ground To Disbelieve Victim In Sexual Assault Cases; Testimony Of 'Sterling' Child Witness Sufficient For Conviction: Gauhati High Court

"It is a common myth that sexual assault must leave injuries. Victims respond to trauma in varied ways, influenced by factors such as fear, shock, social stigma or feelings of helplessness. It is neither realistic nor just to expect a uniform reaction," Gauhati High Court has affirmed that the absence of physical injury marks or medical evidence of recent sexual intercourse cannot be a ground to discard a victim's testimony in sexual assault cases.

While dismissing a criminal appeal against a conviction under the POCSO Act, a single bench of Justice Mitali Thakuria observed that if the testimony of a child witness is found to be of "sterling quality," it requires no further corroboration to sustain a conviction. The court emphasized that the trauma of sexual assault does not always manifest in physical wounds and that "minor discrepancies" in witness statements regarding the time of occurrence are not fatal to the prosecution’s case.

The case arose from an incident in January 2017, where the appellant, Md. Mansur Ali, restrained a 12-year-old girl returning from a Madrassa and subjected her to sexual assault. The Trial Court at Morigaon convicted the appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 341 of the IPC, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant challenged this order, primarily arguing that the medical report showed no injuries and that independent witnesses had turned hostile.

The primary questions before the court were whether the testimony of a child witness could form the sole basis for conviction without independent corroboration. The court also examined whether the absence of bodily injuries in a medico-legal report negates a charge of sexual assault and if the prosecution had established "foundational facts" to trigger the presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act.

Bodily Injuries Are Not A Prerequisite For Proving Sexual Assault

The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the lack of injury marks on the victim’s private parts or body cast doubt on the prosecution's story. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dilip Kumar @ Dalli vs. State of Uttarakhand, the bench noted that it is a "common myth" that sexual assault must leave physical traces. It observed that victims respond to trauma differently and the court must not expect a "uniform reaction" or visible injuries to believe a survivor’s account.

The bench further held that in cases of sexual assault, the medical officer’s failure to find signs of rape or physical violence is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. The court noted that the Indian woman’s tendency to conceal such offences due to social prestige makes it even more imperative for courts to appreciate the evidence with sensitivity rather than a hyper-technical approach.

“Sterling Quality” Of Child Witness Testimony Requires No Corroboration - Court Explains Competency Of Child Witnesses Under Section 118 Evidence Act

The Court held that the conviction can be based on the testimony of a child witness if they possess the capacity to understand questions and give rational answers. Under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, a child is a competent witness, and there is no legal principle suggesting they cannot accurately recapitulate facts from memory. The bench found the victim in this case to be a "sterling witness" who remained consistent in her statements before the Police, the Magistrate, and the Trial Court.

The bench observed that there was no evidence to suggest that the child was "tutored" by her parents. It held that once the court, after careful scrutiny, finds an "impress of truth" in a child’s deposition, there is no obstacle to accepting such evidence. The court noted that in cases of sexual assault on children, the testimony of the victim should be treated with the same weight as an injured witness in physical violence cases.

Trivial Discrepancies In Timings Cannot Discard Trustworthy Evidence

Addressing the discrepancy between the time of occurrence mentioned in the victim's Section 164 CrPC statement (6:00 A.M.) and her trial testimony (8:00 A.M.), the Court ruled that such variations are trivial. It held that minor contradictions which do not touch the core of the case should not permit the rejection of evidence as a whole. The bench noted that even honest witnesses may differ in minor details due to varying powers of observation and retention.

The Court emphasized that cross-examination is often an "unequal duel" between a rustic witness and a refined lawyer. Therefore, appellate courts must attach due weight to the Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence, as the Trial Judge had the opportunity to observe the witness’s demeanor firsthand. The bench concluded that the victim's clarification regarding the timing during her evidence was sufficient to overlook the initial discrepancy.

Foundational Facts Established Presumption Of Guilt Under POCSO Act - Prosecution Successfully Discharges Initial Burden Under Sections 29 & 30

The Court dealt with the "reverse onus" provided under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which presumes the guilt of the accused. While acknowledging the precedent in Manirul Islam vs. State of Assam, which mandates the prosecution to first prove "foundational facts," the bench held that the consistent testimony of the victim and her mother successfully established these facts. Consequently, the burden shifted to the accused to rebut the presumption, which he failed to do.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's challenge to the victim's birth certificate. Although the issuing official was not examined, the court noted that the certificate was a public document issued shortly after the victim's birth in 2005. Since the age of the victim was not seriously disputed during the trial, the court held that the document carried presumptive value and effectively established the victim was a minor at the time of the incident.

In its concluding remarks, the High Court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through the reliable testimony of the prosecutrix. Finding no illegality or perversity in the Trial Court’s judgment, the bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment.

Date of Decision: June 26, 2026