Gauhati High Court Upholds 20-Year POCSO Conviction Of Adoptive Father; Rejects His Defense Of False Implication Over School Discipline
The Bench noted that a child subjected to rape by caretaker cannot be disregarded on mere plea of disciplinary grudge; IO's omission of victim in charge-sheet cured by trial court's vigilance.
The Gauhati High Court has held that serious allegations of rape made by a minor girl against her adoptive fathe cannot be brushed aside on the unproven defense that she lodged a false case out of a grudge over being disciplined for refusing to go to school. The Court also highlighted the critical role of the judiciary in upholding justice by commending the Trial Court for proactively examining the minor victim as a Court Witness after the Investigating Officer curiously omitted her from the list of prosecution witnesses in the charge-sheet.
Consequentially, the appeal filed by the convict was dismissed thereby upholding his conviction and 20-year rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Special Judge (POCSO), Karbi Anglong, Diphu.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Rajesh Mazumdar observed, “…one curious fact that we have noticed is that the victim was not made a prosecution witness by the Investigating Officer in the Charge Sheet. This could have been due to many reasons, which could include the same being done for the benefit of the appellant. However, due to the alertness of the learned Trial Court, the victim has been called to give her testimony as a Court Witness (CW-1). The evidence/ testimony of the victim girl as CW-1 has not been shaken and the cross examination of the victim girl has not shown any preponderance of probability that she had made up a false case. We are not convinced that disciplining of the victim on account of her refusal to go to school could be the reason for filing a false case against the appellant. The appellant could also have adduced evidence along with his wife, if the above explanation given by the appellant in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination was to be taken to be true, for filing the alleged false case. However, the same has not been done in this present case”.
Advocate B. Sarma appeared as amicus curiae for the appellant while B. Bhuyan, Senior Counsel APP and Advocate M. Barman appeared as amicus curiae for the respondents.
The case originated from an FIR lodged on September 10, 2022, at Bokajan Police Station by a villager. The victim, adopted by the appellant and his wife at five years of age, disclosed that she had been repeatedly raped by her adoptive father since April 2022 whenever her mother left for work. Though the victim initially reported the abuse to her mother, she was instructed to stay silent. Unable to bear the ongoing trauma, the victim confided in a neighbour, leading to a village meeting where the appellant confessed his guilt before being handed over to the police.
The trial court framed charges under Sections 376/201 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the husband, and under Section 201 IPC read with Sections 17/21 of the POCSO Act against his wife. Notably, the Investigating Officer omitted the victim from the list of prosecution witnesses in the charge-sheet. Exercising its statutory powers, the Trial Court summoned the victim as a Court Witness (CW-1). Following the trial, the court convicted the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, while acquitting him of Section 201 IPC and acquitting his wife of all charges.
Addressing the defense of grudge and false implication, the High Court held that a minor subjected to sexual assault by the very person expected to protect her would not file a fabricated case merely because she was disciplined or beaten for refusing to go to school. The appellant failed to produce school attendance records or defense evidence to substantiate his claim, while the victim's account remained firm and unshaken throughout cross-examination.
Additionally, the Bench deprecated the conduct of a "two-finger test" during the victim's medical examination, reiterating Lillu v. State of Haryana and State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai to emphasize that the invasive test lacks scientific validity, violates survivor privacy and dignity, and constitutes professional misconduct.
Applying the principles governing extra-judicial confessions laid down in Pritinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court noted that the unrefuted testimony regarding the appellant’s voluntary confession before the villagers served as reliable corroborative evidence. Finding no merit in the appeal, the High Court accordingly dismissed the Criminal Appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Karbi Anglong.
Case Details: Biren Nag v. The State of Assam & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:GAUAS:10113-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: B. Sarma, Amicus Curiae
Respondent: B. Bhuyan, Senior Counsel & Addl. P.P., M. Barman, Amicus Curiae.