Child Lured With Chocolate, Sexually Assaulted In Shop: Gauhati High Court Says Child Victim's Testimony Of Sterling Quality Needs No Corroboration

"In POCSO cases, the Court is required to adopt a sensitive approach while evaluating the testimony of a child victim, and minor discrepancies, if any, do not detract from the core of the prosecution case," Gauhati High Court has dismissed the appeal of a man convicted of committing penetrative sexual assault on a five-year-old child, affirming the twenty-year rigorous imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court.

A Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Kaushik Goswami held that the testimony of the child victim was cogent, consistent, and trustworthy, and that in POCSO cases, conviction can be based solely on the testimony of a child victim if it is of sterling quality and inspires confidence.

The Court further held that the discrepancy in the time of occurrence mentioned in the charge did not vitiate the trial, as no prejudice had been demonstrated to have been caused to the accused.

On December 6, 2020, the mother of a five-year-old boy filed an FIR at Birubari Police Outpost under Paltan Bazar Police Station in Guwahati, alleging that the accused, Ram Pukar Roy, had lured her son into his shop by offering him chocolate. Inside the shop, the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on the child, who returned home injured with bleeding from the anus. A case was registered under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Child Victim's Testimony Found To Be Of Sterling Quality

The Court recorded in detail the deposition of PW-1, the child victim, who stated that the accused had offered him chocolate while he was playing outside his house, took him inside his shop, kissed him, removed his clothes, made him lie on a table, and inserted his penis into his anus, causing injury and bleeding. The victim further stated that the accused gave him chocolate and chips and threatened him not to tell anyone. Upon returning home, the child experienced pain while attempting to pass stool, which prompted him to disclose the incident to his mother.

The Court noted that the prosecution's case substantially rested on the testimony of the victim.

"It is well settled that in cases of sexual offences, including those under the POCSO Act, conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the child victim, provided it is found to be credible, trustworthy, and of sterling quality. No rule of law mandates corroboration if the testimony inspires confidence."

The testimony of PW-2, the mother, and PW-3, the father, corroborated the surrounding circumstances. PW-2 deposed that the accused had lured her son with chocolate, and that when her son returned, he was in pain and she saw blood coming from his anus. PW-3 stated that on returning home at 9 PM, his wife informed him of the incident, and he saw blood in the child's private parts. The Court observed that PW-2 and PW-3 had corroborated the surrounding circumstances, thereby strengthening the prosecution case.

Medical Evidence Leaves No Room For Doubt

PW-7, the Medical Officer who examined the child on December 7, 2020, found multiple fresh anal tears at the 8, 10 and 2 o'clock positions, with tenderness and bleeding on touch, and opined that there was evidence of sexual assault and injuries in the anal region. The Medical Officer denied, during cross-examination, that such injuries could have been caused by the passage of hard stool.

Critically, PW-9, who examined the accused on December 9, 2020, found a circular abrasion encircling the root of the glans penis, reddish-brown in colour, and opined that the abrasion injury was 2 to 4 days old — consistent with the date of the alleged assault.

"The medical evidence lends assurance to the version of the victim, and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses further corroborate the surrounding circumstances, thereby strengthening the prosecution case regarding the commission of penetrative sexual assault by the accused/appellant."

The Court rejected the argument that a minor misdescription of the victim's name in the medical report (Exhibit-3) vitiated the prosecution case. Since no suggestion was put to PW-7 or PW-8 in cross-examination that the victim was not examined or that Exhibit-3 did not pertain to the victim, the factum of medical examination stood duly established. "A mere misdescription or incorrect mention of the victim's name in the medical report, by itself, does not vitiate the prosecution case or the trial, particularly when the identity of the victim and the fact of examination are otherwise proved on record."

Defence Of False Implication Wholly Unsubstantiated

The accused, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, claimed that he had been falsely implicated by the child's mother due to a monetary dispute. He stated that the mother had asked him for Rs. 25,000, which he had refused to pay, and that she had threatened to implicate him in a false case before lodging the FIR.

The Court rejected this defence emphatically.

"The explanation offered by the accused/appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he has been falsely implicated due to an altercation with the mother of the victim, remains wholly unsubstantiated."

Crucially, the Court noted that no suggestion was put to PW-2 in cross-examination that she had fabricated the incident, nor was any suggestion put to the victim that he had been tutored by his mother to depose falsely. "In the absence of any such challenge in cross-examination, the defence has failed to probabilise its plea. Consequently, the defence is liable to be rejected."

Time Discrepancy In Charge Does Not Vitiate Trial

Addressing the argument that the charge mentioned the time of occurrence as 7:00 PM while the chargesheet and prosecution evidence indicated approximately 1:00 PM, the Court held that such a discrepancy did not ipso facto vitiate the trial.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Chittaranjan Das v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1963 SC 1696), the Court reiterated that "the test for validity of a charge is whether the accused had a clear and reasonable understanding of the case he had to meet. Mere inaccuracies or omissions do not vitiate the trial unless prejudice is shown."

The Court also placed reliance on the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Sandeep Yadav v. Satish and Ors. (2026 Supreme (SC) 327), which reaffirmed that "defects in framing of charge or omission thereof are not fatal unless they occasion a failure of justice. The object of framing a charge is to give notice to the accused, and procedural lapses which do not affect the fairness of the trial are curable."

The Court found that the accused was fully aware of the nature of the accusation from the very inception of the proceedings, as the chargesheet itself mentioned 1:00 PM as the time of occurrence. No prejudice having been demonstrated, the contention was dismissed.

Conviction Affirmed — Gravity Of Act Warrants Maximum Punishment

On a cumulative appreciation of the evidence — the consistent testimony of the five-year-old victim, the corroborating depositions of the parents, the medical evidence revealing fresh anal injuries in the child and a fresh abrasion on the genitalia of the accused, and the failure of the defence to cross-examine the victim or his mother on the plea of false implication — the Court held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

"Having regard to the nature and gravity of the act proved on record, the age of the victim, and the attendant circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the punishment prescribed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is clearly attracted and fully warranted in the facts of the present case."

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on December 31, 2022 were affirmed in their entirety. The appellant was directed to undergo the remaining part of his sentence.

Date of Decision: April 23, 2026