Page No.# 1/13
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A. 99/2016
Sri Mothong Chutia alias Nageswar
Son of late Ghekut Chutia,
(1) State of Assam.
(2) Smt. Bina Chetia,
Wife of Sri Pabitra Chetia,
(3) Smt. Sonali Dowarah,
Wife of Sri Padmeswar Dowarah,
Page No.# 2/13
For appellant : Mr. P Sarmah.
For respondent : Mr. D Das, Addl.PP.
Date hearing : 5.3.2019.
Date of judgment : 27.3.2019
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV).
Heard Mr P Sarmah, learned counsel for appellant. Also heard Mr D Das,
learned additional public prosecutor for the state.
(2) Present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge,
Tinsukia dated 21.3.2016 in Sessions Case 11(T)/2014 whereby the appellant is
convicted u/s 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to r/i for seven years with a fine of
Rs 2,000 and in default to r/i for six months.
(3) The case of the prosecution briefly stated is that ones Bina Chetia and Sonali
Dowara lodged an FIR on 15.9.2013 alleging inter alia that on 8.9.2013 at about 11
AM while their minor daughters(X and Y) aged about 12 and 8 years respectively
went to the house of accused appellant, the accused committed rape upon them
confining them in his house. Based on this FIR, Barekuri PS case 25/2013 u/s
376(2)(1) of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act was registered and the
victim was examined by medical officer, statement was recorded u/s 161 and 164 of
Page No.# 3/13
the CrPC and at the conclusion of trial charge sheet was submitted under the said
Sections of law.
(4) The case being triable by the Special Court, it was committed to the said
court. Accused entered appearance before the court and denied the charge under
the said Sections of law.
(5) Prosecution examined fifteen witnesses in support of its case and the defence
did not examine anyone. The plea of defence is of total denial. Statement of the
accused was recorded u/s 313 of the CrPC. The accused was held guilty and
convicted as aforesaid at the conclusion of trial. Hence this appeal.
(6) Heard submissions of learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for
(7) Learned counsel for appellant Mr Sarma has strenuously argued that the
prosecution case is doubtful in view of the delay in filing the FIR and the conduct of
the victim girl who did not report the matter immediately after the occurrence
coupled with the inconsistencies in their evidence about the reference of Jimpi at
the time of occurrence and contended that evidence of the informant and the victims
is not convincing so as to accept authenticity of the case.
(8) Mr Sarmah led this court through evidence of the victim girls to show that the
victim girls without reporting the matter of such serious incident were playing after
the incident and their statements u/s 161 and 164 of the CrPC are virtually
different regarding the reference of Jimpi. As regards the conduct of the informants,
it is stated that they have stated about amicable settlement for which there was
delay in filing the FIR but according to him there cannot be any amicable settlement
Page No.# 4/13
of such serious matter. Further it is urged before this court that no confession of the
accused was recorded to prove that he made such confessional statement before the
witnesses as stated by them. That apart there are discrepancies between the
informants regarding the time of information to the police. Accordingly it is
submitted that the accused being an aged person of about 67 years having wife,
children and grandsons is no way associated with the alleged offence and is liable to
be acquitted of the charge.
(9) Learned Addl. PP, however, refuted the contention of learned counsel for
appellant saying that the evidence of the victims remained unrebutted and the
accused has failed to rebut the presumption u/s 29 of the POCSO Act. The court
cannot lose sight of the fact that the victims are of very tender age and there may be
some omission and contradiction in their evidence but their evidence is otherwise
supported by medical evidence where injuries were found in their private parts by
the doctor. For simple contradiction and omission of testimonies of such minor
victims the case cannot be discarded as no minor child will be projected to launch a
criminal case on the part of their parents unless it is shown that the victim and
informant were gravely motivated by any ulterior motive. It is also forcefully argued
that in the context of the Indian society parents of victims think thousands of time
prior to filing FIR for fear of being scorned by the society and the delay in filing the
FIR cannot be doubted in such cases.
(10) Having heard rival submissions let us now appreciate the evidence on record.
(11) PW2(referred as X) and PW3(referred as Y) are the victims, aged about 12
and 8 years respectively. They stated that on the day of occurrence(8.9.2013) they
Page No.# 5/13
went to the house of their friend Jimpi who is the daughter of the accused and
asked about Jimpi then accused told him that she was inside the house. As soon as
they went inside the house the accused closed the door of the room and committed
bad act upon PW3(the words told by her) putting off her panty and thereafter
offering Rs 10/- asked her not to tell anybody and then the accused committed
sexual intercourse with her. The accused also offered the second victim Rs 20/- and
asked her not to disclose the matter to anybody. Thereafter they went to their
houses and reported the matter to their mothers who reported the matter to villagers
and also went to the house of the accused to ask about the incident.
(12) PW2 in cross-examination stated that after the incident she went to the house
of Ankita Dowara and played there for half an hour. They also stated about the
statements before a Magistrate vide exhibit 2 and 3. They have denied the
suggestion of the defence that they have given evidence as tutored by their mothers
and denied other suggestions.
(13) Bina Chutia(PW1) and Sonali Dowara(PW4) are the mothers of PW2 and PW3
respectively. They stated that after the said incident was reported to them by their
daughters they informed the matter to villagers and along with them went to the
house of accused and when asked the accused confessed before them the
commission of the offence and then fled away. They stated that the FIR was lodged
on 10.9.2013 as there was a village meeting to settle the matter amicably. Apart
from giving suggestion of denial nothing is elicited from their evidence to suggest
false implication of the accused.
Page No.# 6/13
(14) The other witnesses are Rituraj Dowara(PW6), Chitrajit Chetia(PW7). They
stated that the mothers of the victims met them and told that on 8.9.2013 the
accused committed rape upon their daughters and then both the witnesses went
along with the PW1 and PW4 to the house of accused but the accused fled away.
Then they asked the family members of the accused to produce the accused before
them for settlement but the accused did not turn up and so they advised the
informants to lodge FIR.
(15) Smt. Rangiti Dowara(PW8), Smt. Rima Dowara(PW9), Smt. Binita
Dowara(PW10) gave similar statement that about 7 months back at about 3 PM,
PW4 came to their house and stated that the accused committed rape upon both the
victims and all three of them went to the house of the accused along with Sonali
Dowara(PW4) and on being asked the accused confessed to have committed rape
and also threatened them to do whatever they can do.
(16) Smt. S. Hazarika Chutia(PW11) denied having any knowledge of the
occurrence. She was declared hostile by the prosecution. The evidence of PW12 is
similar to that of PW11. PW13 is the friend of the victim PW2. According to her she
was reported by the victim about the incident after three days of the occurrence. She
is a student of Class VII.
(17) The medical officer(PW14) who examined the X on 16.9.2013 found the
“General configuration and development – average.
Mental status – tense. Weight 20 kg. Height 128 cm.
Dentition – 24(permanent 5 and temporary 19).
Abdomen – No abnormality detected. Breasts, areola and nipples not developed.
Page No.# 7/13
Scalp hair normal. Pubic hair and auxiliary hair absent.
Menstruation history – puberty not attained. Genitals not developed.
Vulva injury – abrasion and bruise under healing present over the vaginal area.
Labia minora and labia majora not developed. Hymen torn. Posteriorly and edges
congested and swollen. Vaginal admits one finger. Uterus not palpable. Vaginal
discharge absent. Fourchette normal. Fossa navicularis disappeared.
Examination was painful.
Injuries on the body other than genitals absent. Radiological opinion of age and as
per the report, epiphysis not fused and her age is below 14 years. X-Ray report
no.R/14 dated 16.9.2013. Laboratory report of vaginal smear – no spermatozoa was
found on the vaginal smear supplied.
Opinion :- 1. Sign of forceful sexual assault present.
2. Sign of injury mark under healing present over private parts.
3. From physical, dental and radiological examination, the age of the
girl is about 8 to 9 years.”
(18) The medical officer(PW14) who examined the Y on the same day found the
“General configuration and development average. Mental state depressed and
tense. Weight 40 kg. Height 149 cm. Dentition 28(permanent 20 and temporary 8).
Abdomen – NAD. Breasts, areola and nipples not developed. Scalp hair normal. Pubic
and auxiliary hair absent. Puberty not attained. Vulva injury – abrasion and bruise
under healing present. Labia minora and labia majora – pubertal. Hymen torn
posteriorly, edges congested and swollen. Vagina admits one finger. Uterus not
palpable. Vaginal discharge absent. Fourchette normal.
Examination – painful.
Injuries on the body other than genitals absent. Radiological opinion on age – Elbow –
epiphysis fused, age would be above 14 years. Wrist joint – Epiphysis not fused and
age would be below 18 years. Hip joint not fused and age would be 21 years.
Laboratory examination of spermatozoa – no spermatozoa seen.
Opinion – 1. Sign of forceful sexual assault present.
Page No.# 8/13
2. Sign of injury mark under healing present over private parts.
3. From physical, dental and radiological examination, the age of the
girl is about 12 to 14 years.
Exhibit 5 is the medical report and exhibit 5(1) is my signature.”
(19) Investigating officer Sri Uttam Adhikary(PW15), Sub-inspector of Police,
deposed that on 15.9.2013 one Bina Chutia lodged an ejahar stating that on
8.9.2013 Sunday at about 11 AM the victim girls aged about 8 years and 12 years
went to the house of the accused who called them inside and raped them showing
money and based on the statement of the victims went to the house of the accused
along with the informant and others an when asked, the accused confessed that he
had committed the crime threatening them to do whatever they can do. After
registering the cases he examined the informants at the police station and recorded
statements of the victims and then went to the house of the accused at Na-
motapung Gaon, inspected the spot, drew a sketch map and recorded statement of
the witnesses at the spot. He did not find the accused at that time. At night at about
11 PM, accused surrendered on 16.9.2013 and he arrested the accused and later
forwarded to the court. He forwarded the victims to the hospital to medically
examine them and later forwarded to the court to record their statement u/s 164 of
the CrPC and collecting copy of the statements and completing the investigation filed
charge-sheet against the accused u/s 376(i) of the IPC read with Section 4 of the
POCSO Act. During investigation, he recorded statement of witness Smt. Swarnalata
Hazarika Chetia who said that on 15.9.2013 she was informed by Smt. Sonali
Dowara and Bina Chetia that their daughters were subjected to rape by the accused
on 8.9.2013 and after hearing this when they went to the house of the accused, he
Page No.# 9/13
scolded them saying that he had committed rape on the victims and threatened that
they can do whatever they wanted to.
(20) The IO, in cross-examination, could not say how many rooms are there in the
house of the accused, and said that there is an outhouse where the crime was
allegedly committed by the accused and he has not seized the wearing apparels,
undergarments etc of the victims or any bed sheet where the occurrence allegedly
took place. The victims stated before him that the accused committed bad act(beya
kaam) with them. PW1 did not state before him that on the day of occurrence when
her daughters asked the accused about Jimpi, the accused told them to come inside
and whenever they went inside he closed the door and sexually harassed them one
by one putting them on his bed. PW2 did not state before him that the accused had
committed sexual intercourse with the victims. PW5 did not state before him that
mothers of the victims told him that the accused committed rape upon their
(21) On due scrutiny of the evidence on record it is found that evidence of both
victims are constant as regards the occurrence and having regard to their tendered
age nothing can be expected. Some minor discrepancy is bound to appear in their
evidence because of tendered age, understanding and lack of perception of sex etc.
(22) In the context of general village people they used the words ‘bad works’ to
indicate sexual acts for which one of the minors stated about ‘bad works’ while
stating that the ‘misdeed’ conducted by the accused and they do not know the words
“sexual intercourse” for which they only say the said words. Such an attempt by the
defence side that there is no such rape as the victims did not say about ‘intercourse’
Page No.# 10/13
is absolutely improper approach and deserves no consideration. Appreciation of
evidence is of paramount importance. One should be aware that evidence of minor
person cannot be at par with the major one. The evidence of minor witnesses
sometimes suffers from exaggeration, omission because of lack of maturity, but their
evidence can be accepted if there appears ring of truth. In the present case the
victims are aged about 8 years and 12 years have corroborated each other about the
entire incident which is again supported by witnesses of the locality and medical
evidence. The extent of injury found in the private parts of the victims is clear
indication of penetration/sexual assault upon the victims. Regarding the challenge
that the mothers of the victims failed to say about the exact date of filing of the FIR
and stated some other date about filing of the FIR it may be for failure of memory as
their evidence in court was recorded much after the incident. For the said reasons
the entire prosecution case which is otherwise established cannot be thrown away.
(23) In State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and others (1996) 2 SCC 384, the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that the testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and
unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of
her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim
of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires
confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before
relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury.
Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual
molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The Court while
appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her
statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested
Page No.# 11/13
in the outcome of the charge levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to
insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The
evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost at par with the evidence of an
injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has
sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self inflicted, is
considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real
culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight,
absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an
imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a
condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a
requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances.
(24) In the instant case both the victims are too minor to perceive the conduct of
the accused and they were lured by the accused offering money for which they may
not immediately disclose the matter. Otherwise their evidence does not suffer from
any infirmity so as to disbelieve their version. There does not appear anything to
show that they are tutored. Further neither the victims nor the informants have any
sort of enmity with the accused for false implication. That being so minor omission
here and there cannot be a ground to discard their evidence.
(25) There is some delay in filing the FIR. The honourable Supreme Court, in
State of M.P. vs. Babulal (2008) 1 SCC 234 and State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Prem
Singh (2009) 1 SCC 420, on the matter of delay, has held that delay in a case of
sexual assault cannot be equated with the case involving other offences. There are
several factors which weigh in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family members
Page No.# 12/13
before coming to the police station to lodge a complaint, and in a tradition-bound
society prevalent in India, more particularly rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to
throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there was some delay in
lodging the FIR.
(26) In view of the legal proposition and the factual matrix of this case as
discussed above, delay cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of two minor
victims. Moreover, the evidence of the victims is fully supported by the medical
evidence as discussed above and certain injuries are found in the private parts of
the victims and also there is sign of forceful sexual assault. Even they have not
attained puberty. There are abrasion and bruise in the vaginal area under healing
and hymen is torn. Such a serious finding of the medical officer has clearly
suggested sexual assault upon the victims.
(27) The accused has failed to rebut the presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of
the POCSO Act. The provisions of Section 29 and 30 read as follows:
“29. Presumption as to certain offences.-
Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attenuating to commit any offence under
sections 3,5,7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has
committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is
30. Presumption of culpable mental state.-
1. In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the
part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a
defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act
charged as an offence in that prosecution.
2. For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court believes it
to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance
Page No.# 13/13
(28) In this case the appellant except giving certain suggestions has failed to shake
the credibility of the witnesses. He also made certain extrajudicial confession before
the witnesses, which cannot be discarded. There appears no illegality or perversity
in the impugned judgment and order and the learned trial court has properly
appreciated the entire material on record in arriving at the guilt of the appellant.
Nothing appears to be interfered with.
(29) Child rape cases are the cases of perverse lust for sex where even innocent
child is not spared in pursuit of sexual pleasure. There cannot be any obscene than
this. It is a crime against humanity. Many such cases are not even brought into light
because of social stigma attached thereto, held in State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash
(2002) 5 SCC 201.
(30) The appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. Send down the LCR
with copy of this judgment.