The bench held that the prosecution had not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

‘Bad deeds’

The court noted that the survivor had not explained as to what she meant when she had said that accused had committed “bad deeds” with her, upon the same the court stated that the term ‘bad act’ does not by itself mean that “sexual intercourse or rape had taken place.”

It was further explained that the term had to be seen with other relevant facts and that though the term leans towards an inference that rape or sexual intercourse had taken place, the same cannot be said certainty.

‘Bad act’ could also mean other forms of harassment and assaults. Therefore, unless the word was clarified, the word could have multiple meanings and unless there was clarification, the exact wrong done to the survivor was left uncertain and was not decisive.

‘Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment’

• The father of the survivor had filed an FIR on July 2020, addressed to the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned, stating that the accused had been subjecting his 12-year-old daughter to sexual harassment.
• As per this FIR this had been happening since past two years after the death of the survivor’s mother.
• The father got to know about the incident when he was informed by the neighbour who had witnessed the two accused persons sexually harassing the survivor then he asked his daughter about the incident.
• She had then informed him that the two accused persons had lured her, by promising to give her money.
• She also said that the accused told her that if she disclosed the matter to her father, then he would die like her mother.
• Following the FIR. a case was registered under Section 376 (punishment for rape) IPC read with Section 4 (penetrative sexual assault) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
• After investigation the charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. Special judge, POCSO convicted the accused for rape and for aggravated penetrative sexual assault in April, 2025.
• The accused had accordingly been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years with a fine of Rs 1 lakh.
• The accused approached the high court in appeal against this sentence.

‘Possible tutoring of survivor’

Senior Advocate TJ Mahanta and advocate PP Dutta appearing for the accused contended that the conviction of the two accused had been made solely on the basis of evidence of the survivor which was not reliable.

It was submitted that there was contradiction in the evidence of the survivor at the time of examination-in-chief and her cross examination.

He also submitted that there was a delay of 9 days in filing the FIR from the date of occurrence of the incident, which gives rise to an inference that there had been embellishment in the FIR submitted to the Police.

It was further urged that apart from a possibility of the survivor being tutored, the statement of the survivor had also been taken by the police two days after the filing of the FIR i.e. it was recorded after 11 days of the filing of the FIR.

The counsels submitted that while the FIR had been filed by the father on the basis of the neighbour witnessing the incident, the testimony before the trial court made no mention of any sexual harassment being caused by the two accused against the survivor.

Lastly, it was argued that since the foundational facts were not proved by the prosecution, the requirement of the accused to prove their innocence did not arise and hence the judgment convicting the accused should be set aside.

‘No contradiction in the evidence of the survivor’

The Additional Public Prosecutor B Bhuyan along with advocate S Saloi appearing on behalf of the state argued that there was no contradiction in the evidence of the survivor and that the delay of 9 days in filing the FIR did not provide any benefit to the accused.

It was submitted that the evidence of the child, subjected to sexual abuse at the age of twelve, was trustworthy and should inspire the confidence of the court.

She urged that that there was nothing in the evidence to show that there was any enmity between the family of the survivor or the accused, for a false case to have been filed against them and that there had been no tutoring of the survivor.

She also contended that there were a number of unmerited acquittals in rape cases and that courts have to display a greater sense of responsibility and be more sensitive while dealing with charges of sexual assault on women.

The counsel for the survivor S Sharma argued on the similar lines as that of the state and contended that it was the duty of the court to deal with cases involving sexual molestation with utmost sensitivity.

‘Absconding does not imply guilty mind’

The Gauhati High Court while acquitting the accused by giving them the benefit of doubt, stated that the evidence of the survivor was not credible and that the same required further support.

On the contention that “records and the evidence show that the accused were apparently absconding prior to their arrest, which implies a guilty mind”, the court was of the perspective that it could also mean that they wanted to escape from harassment of the police.

It was the stance of the court that “accused’ absconding” could be relevant only when there exists some evidence to prove their guilt and that escaping arrest alone could not be the basis for proving their guilt.

Hence, the court held that the prosecution had not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and set aside the judgment passed by the trial court.