Safiya Malik

The Gauhati High Court has set aside the conviction of an appellant convicted under Sections 366(A) and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court stated that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case arose from an FIR lodged on December 1, 2020, by the father of a minor girl, alleging that on November 30, 2020, at approximately 5 PM, his 17-year-old daughter had gone missing. The informant searched for his daughter but could not locate her. Subsequently, during the investigation, the police recovered the girl and recorded her statement before a magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), where she claimed to be 14 years old at the time of the alleged incident.

The victim stated that she was unfamiliar with the appellant before the incident and alleged that he abducted her in a car, gagged her, and transported her to Tezpur. She further stated that she shouted for help but was unheard and had to spend two days inside a Maruti car, where the appellant provided her food. According to her statement, she was later taken to a house where the appellant warned her against revealing that she had been kidnapped. After a few days, she was returned to her village and dropped near her house.

Also Read: Supreme Court Slams Gwalior Municipal Corporation’s Bid Restrictions, Calls Exclusion of Indian Firms ‘Wholly Untenable’

During the trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, including the victim, her parents, eyewitnesses, a medical expert, and the investigating officer. The appellant presented one defense witness to contest the victim's age, arguing that she was above 18 years old at the time of the incident.

The trial court convicted the appellant based primarily on the victim’s testimony and the supporting statements of certain witnesses.

The Gauhati High Court examined the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the testimony of the victim and the corroborative statements from other witnesses. The Bench stated that "in criminal jurisprudence, it is compulsory on the part of the prosecution that in order to hold a person guilty of an offence, the offence must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt."

Regarding the alleged abduction, prosecution witnesses Mustafijur Rahman and Sanidul Islam testified that they saw the victim voluntarily entering the car of the appellant. The court noted that their statements conflicted with the prosecution's claim of forcible kidnapping. "From the evidence of Mustafijur Rahman and Sanidul Islam, it appears that the victim girl was a consenting party."

Hamed Ali, another prosecution witness, stated that the victim remained with the appellant for over a year before returning home voluntarily. His testimony raised further questions about the credibility of the prosecution’s claims regarding the victim’s alleged captivity and forceful detention.

Medical evidence played a significant role in the judgment. Dr. Hafija Ahmed, the medical expert, conducted an X-ray examination and determined that the victim’s age was between 18 and 19 years. The court observed that this contradicted the victim's claim that she was 14 years old at the time of the alleged crime. Additionally, the medical examination could not conclusively establish sexual assault. "Even the medical evidence was against the victim."

The defense presented a document suggesting that the victim was above 18 years old. However, the court noted that this document did not match the birth certificate produced by the prosecution, creating further inconsistencies.

The court also examined the victim’s actions while allegedly confined at the appellant’s relative’s house. Despite being surrounded by other individuals, she did not seek help or inform anyone that she had been kidnapped or sexually assaulted. The court remarked: "In spite of the presence of other people in the house at Tezpur, the victim girl never disclosed before anyone that she was raped by the appellant."

Further, the court noted that the testimony of the victim contained inconsistencies. While she claimed she was kidnapped and forcibly taken to Tezpur, the statements of eyewitnesses suggested that she willingly entered the vehicle. The bench reaffirmed the principle that in criminal cases where two views are possible—one favoring the accused and another against—the court must adopt the view that benefits the accused. "It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that when two views are possible, the view which goes in favour of the appellant should be accepted."

The investigating officer's testimony was also examined. While the officer confirmed the chain of events presented by the prosecution, no independent evidence was provided to corroborate the allegations of abduction or sexual assault. The court observed that the burden of proof lay entirely with the prosecution and that mere allegations were insufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of conclusive evidence.

The Gauhati High Court stated that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment stated: "The offence of kidnapping, rape, and sexual assault upon a child are not proved against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt."

The court noted that the trial court had erred in relying solely on the victim’s testimony without sufficient corroboration from independent evidence. Given the inconsistencies in witness statements and the inconclusive medical findings, the court found no basis for upholding the conviction.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Doctor Accused Of Raping Dalit On-Duty Nurse At Midnight

Accordingly, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment read: "The impugned judgment and order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (P), Bongaigaon in Special (P) Case No.12(M)/2021, arising out of G.R. Case No.1429/2020, is set aside. The appellant Nasib Ali is found not guilty and he is acquitted accordingly. If the appellant is still in custody, he shall be set at liberty forthwith."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. M.U. Mahmud, Advocate; Mr. S. Islam, Advocate; Mr. S. Afridi, Advocate; Mr. S. Sur, Advocate; Mr. S.H. Mahmud, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. D. Gogoi, Advocate (for Respondent No. 2); Public Prosecutor, Assam.

Case Title: N v. The State of Assam & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:2274

Case Number: Crl.A./276/2023

Bench: Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia

[Read/Download order]