Child Sexual Abuse Cases In Mizoram Alarming | Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under POCSO And Directs Statewide Safeguards To Protect Children
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gauhati Single Bench of Justice Kaushik Goswami upheld the conviction of an individual under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and dismissed the appeal. The court directed the State Government to take necessary measures for the protection of children from sexual abuse and exploitation. It further issued a set of structured recommendations aimed at all stakeholders, including child protection bodies, educational institutions, and media organizations, mandating the adoption of proactive safeguards and awareness mechanisms to address the growing incidence of child sexual offences in the region.
The matter arose out of a judgment dated 22 April 2024 delivered by the Fast Track Special Court (Rape & POCSO Act, 2012), Champhai District, Mizoram, which convicted the appellant under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The case was initiated based on an FIR lodged on 2 June 2023 by the father of the victim, alleging that his daughter, who was nine years old at the time of the incident, was subjected to penetrative sexual assault in the year 2018.
According to the prosecution, the accused had called the minor to his home, where he committed the act. It was further alleged that the same accused had also sexually assaulted the younger daughter of the complainant in 2021 by inappropriate touching. Based on these allegations, a case was registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code.
The matter was investigated, and a charge sheet was submitted upon collection of the medical report and recording of witness statements. The trial court, after framing charges, proceeded with the examination of seven prosecution witnesses. The victim was examined as PW-2. She narrated the incident in detail, explaining how the accused had enticed her with money and lured her into his house where he allegedly committed the offence. She also described the physical acts, including penetration, and stated that she had not immediately informed her parents due to fear but disclosed the incident in 2023 when an unrelated quarrel arose between her family and that of the accused.
The medical officer who examined the victim testified as PW-5 and confirmed that the hymen was found to be ruptured, although the rupture was not recent. The birth certificate of the victim, seized during the investigation, showed her date of birth as 18 May 2011, confirming that she was below 12 years of age at the time of the incident.
The statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was consistent with her deposition before the court. The investigating officer testified as PW-8 and presented the procedural steps taken during the investigation. The defence produced two witnesses, including the wife and sister of the accused, who claimed that he was a hardworking man and remained mostly in the fields except on Sundays.
The trial court held that the sole testimony of the victim was trustworthy, and there was no requirement for further corroboration. The court found that the delay in lodging the FIR had been reasonably explained and did not affect the credibility of the case.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant filed the present criminal appeal.
The High Court considered the entire evidence on record and examined the reasoning adopted by the trial court. The court stated: “This being an appeal against conviction let me now analyze the evidence on record.”
Referring to the victim’s testimony, the court observed: “It appears that the prosecutrix in the instant case is the sole eyewitness to the sexual assault committed upon her by the accused/appellant. In such cases, there is no bar for convicting an accused solely on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix without seeking corroboration in material particulars.”
The court found that the prosecutrix had given her deposition in a realistic manner and stated: “It does not appear that the prosecutrix has been tutored or that she is making out a false allegation against the accused/appellant.”
On the issue of delay, the court stated: “In cases of sexual offence of a child, if the court accepts the version of the victim at its face value, there is no requirement to search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, that would lend assurance to her testimony, and delay in such cases per se is also not a mitigating circumstance for the accused.”
Quoting from the Supreme Court decision in State of H.P Vs. Shree Kant Shekari, the High Court observed: “Delay in lodging first information report cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for discarding prosecution case and doubting its authenticity. It only puts the court on guard to search for and consider if any explanation has been offered for the delay. Once it is offered, the Court is to only see whether it is satisfactory or not.”
The court examined the statutory provisions and held: “Whoever penetrates his penis to any extent into the vagina of a child below 12 years is sufficient enough, amongst others, to constitute the offence of aggravated sexual assault.”
It further observed: “In the present case, the prosecution has established that the age of the victim girl is below 12 years and that the accused/appellant has penetrated his penis into the vagina of the prosecutrix. Therefore, an offence of aggravated sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, is clearly made out.”
Referring to the trial court’s findings, the High Court stated: “The trial Court has based its conviction on the sole testimony of the victim, which, in the opinion of this court, is totally trustworthy and of sterling quality.”
The court also acknowledged that the accused had been convicted in three other similar cases under the POCSO Act and stated that this factor was relevant to assessing the gravity of the offence.
The court concluded: “That being so, the appeal is bereft of any merit whatsoever. Hence, the criminal appeal fails.”
Before concluding, the High Court issued directives to address the rise in POCSO-related offences in Mizoram. The court stated: “There has been a steep rise in offences relating to sexual assault and sexual harassment of children under the POCSO Act, 2012, in the State of Mizoram. It appears that despite stringent punishments prescribed under the POCSO Act, 2012, being enacted to protect children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, among others; children are continuously being sexually exploited and abused.”
The court stated that the situation is “alarming” and held: “Unless it is appropriately and adequately addressed, the best interest and well-being of the child shall remain endangered, and in jeopardy.”
Recognizing the vulnerability of children, the court recommended the following institutional and policy measures:
First, it recorded that every school, whether government or private, must formulate and implement a comprehensive Child Protection Policy, including standard operating procedures on addressing cases of child sexual abuse.
Second, it stated that all schools must organize regular trainings on child protection and prevention of child sexual abuse for staff, parents, and students to create awareness and equip them with the necessary skills to prevent and respond to such cases.
Third, the court recorded that the Education Department may take measures to incorporate child protection as part of school curriculums to empower children with age-appropriate information and knowledge on their rights and protection.
Fourth, the court stated that awareness sessions should be conducted by child protection stakeholders, including State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights (SCPCR), Child Welfare Committees (CWC), District Child Protection Units (DCPU), Special Juvenile Police Units (SJPU), and State and District Legal Services Authorities (SLSA/DLSA). These sessions may be supported by credible NGOs working on child rights and protection.
Fifth, the court stated that Information, Education and Communication (IEC) materials in local languages should be circulated and published widely in schools and communities through social workers, village councils, Anganwadi workers, Shiksha Karmis, and Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) workers, among others, to generate awareness at scale.
Finally, the court stated that media organizations may feature regular talk shows and short films generating awareness on child sexual abuse to educate the public and promote prevention.
The court concluded: “I am hopeful that if such an initiative is undertaken with utmost sincerity and commitment, it would effectively shield every child from the scourge of child sexual abuse.”
The court directed that a copy of the judgment be furnished to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram to look into the matter and take necessary steps for the protection of children from sexual abuse and exploitation.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. H. Zodinsanga, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondents: Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, Additional Public Prosecutor, Mizoram; Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, Legal Aid Counsel
Case Title: Re: XXX v State of Mizoram & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-MZ:106
Case Number: Crl. Appeal (J) No. 24 of 2024
Bench: Justice Kaushik Goswami
[Read/Download order]
