Court affirms conviction under Section 6 of POCSO Act, stresses credibility of minor victim’s testimony and mandates strict confidentiality of victim’s identity in sexual offence trials
In a landmark judgment delivered on August 28, 2026, the Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri) upheld the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of Jiwan Rai, who was found guilty of repeatedly sexually assaulting his minor daughter, resulting in her pregnancy. The judgment, pronounced by Justices Shampa Sarkar and Prasenjit Biswas, reaffirmed the trial court’s decision passed in September 2021, rejecting the appellant’s plea for acquittal.
The case originated from a written complaint lodged by the victim’s maternal uncle, Man Kumar Rai, after the minor girl disclosed the repeated sexual assaults by her father. The victim, aged around 15 years at the time, was found to be approximately five to six months pregnant when the complaint was made. Subsequent investigation led to the filing of charges under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), which deals with penetrative sexual assault on a child.
During the trial, the victim provided detailed and consistent testimony about the repeated assaults, including descriptions of the appellant forcibly entering her room at night, undressing her, and committing rape on multiple occasions. The victim also narrated the physical abuse and threats she endured when she resisted or contemplated disclosure, explaining her initial silence. The testimony was corroborated by the victim’s maternal uncle and aunt, who confirmed the victim’s pregnancy and the circumstances leading to the complaint.
Medical evidence played a crucial role in substantiating the victim’s account, with the examining doctor confirming the pregnancy at about 24 weeks and estimating the victim’s age to be around 15 years, consistent with documentary evidence including a birth certificate issued by the gram panchayat. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the absence of a medical age test or DNA profiling undermined the prosecution’s case. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the lack of DNA evidence is not fatal if the testimony of the victim is credible and supported by other evidence.
The Court further emphasized that in cases involving sexual offences against minors, the sole testimony of the victim can suffice for conviction if it inspires confidence and is free from material inconsistencies. The minor’s testimony, supported by medical and corroborative evidence, satisfied this standard.
Importantly, the Court expressed serious concern over the disclosure of the victim’s identity during the trial and in the judgment, noting that such disclosure violates statutory mandates under the POCSO Act and Supreme Court rulings protecting the privacy and dignity of sexual offence victims, especially minors. The Court directed the trial court to exercise utmost caution and ensure strict confidentiality of the victim’s identity in future proceedings.
The judgment also highlighted the grave betrayal of trust involved when a father commits sexual offences against his daughter, underscoring the need for stern judicial response to such crimes. The Court dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the life imprisonment sentence and fine imposed on the appellant.
This judgment reinforces the legal protections accorded to minor victims under the POCSO Act and clarifies evidentiary standards in sexual offence cases, particularly the sufficiency of credible victim testimony and the non-mandatory nature of DNA evidence. It also serves as a stern reminder to courts about safeguarding the confidentiality of victims’ identities to protect them from further trauma and social stigma.
Bottom Line:
Conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act upheld for repeated sexual assault by a father on his minor daughter, resulting in her pregnancy. Testimony of the minor victim found credible and consistent, requiring no further corroboration. Non-disclosure of the victim's identity emphasized as a statutory mandate to safeguard her dignity and privacy.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), Section 164 Cr.P.C., Section 53A Cr.P.C., Section 281 Cr.P.C., Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 (Rule 4(5), Rule 5)
This news report is based on the detailed judgment of the Calcutta High Court in CRA (DB) 4 of 2022 dated 28.08.2026, which upheld the conviction of Jiwan Rai for repeated sexual assault on his minor daughter under the POCSO Act. The Court’s thorough analysis, reliance on Supreme Court precedents, and directions on victim confidentiality have significant implications for the prosecution of sexual offences against children in India.
