Page No.# 1/19 GAHC010048922024 2026:GAU-AS:7242- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./82/2024 JAGGANATH BARMAN S/O- LATE BRAJENDRA BARMAN, R/O- UTTAR KALABHANGA, P.S.- BARPETA ROAD, ASSAM-781315. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM. 2:NIKHIL BARMAN (INFORMANT) S/O- SRI SUNIL BARMAN R/O- UTTAR KALAHBHANGA P.S.-BARPETA ROAD ASSAM - 781315 Advocate for the appellant : Mr. A. Gautam, Adv. Advocate for the respondent No.1 : Ms. A. Begum, Addl. P.P., Assam Advocate for the respondent No.2 : Ms. M.K. Brown, Amicus Curiae :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA Date on which judgment is reserved : 21.05.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 26.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A Page No.# 2/19 operative part of the judgment ? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (M. Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. A. Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. P.P, Assam appearing for the State respondent and Ms. M.K. Brown, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2. 2. This is an appeal against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Barpeta in Special (POCSO) Case No.95/2022, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years. 3. The conviction has been made in view of the learned Trial Court having found the appellant guilty of having committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 4 ½ year old victim girl. 4. The appellant's counsel submits that a case under Section 6 of the POCSO Act has not been made out, inasmuch as, the Medical Doctor (PW-6) in his opinion stated that there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse detected at the time of examination, though the genital findings were suggestive of vaginal manipulation. Further, the Doctor had stated that there Page No.# 3/19 was no evidence of violence detected on the private parts of the victim, except the redness and tenderness around the hymen. The learned counsel for the appellant thus submits that at best the appellant could have been convicted under Section 9 of the POCSO Act. He also submits that as can be seen from the evidence of the defence witnesses, Nikhil Barman, Pradip Barman, Biplab Barman and Uttam Saha had been seen beating up the appellant, on the allegation that the appellant had raped the victim. However, Biplab Barman and Uttam Saha had not been made Prosecution witnesses. He also submits that though the informant's father, Sunil Barman had gone to the house of the appellant to pick up the victim, the said Sunil Barman has not been made a Prosecution witness, as he could have corroborated the evidence of the victim and her mother (PW-3). 5. The appellant's counsel’s further case is that there was a delay in filing the FIR, inasmuch as, the same had been filed at 1 p.m. on 26/04/2022, while the incident had occurred on 25/04/2022 at 5 p.m, thus, giving time to the Prosecution to make embellishments to the case and concoct a false story. He also submits that the evidence of the defence witnesses go to show that there was a land dispute between the informant and the appellant, due to which, a false case had been registered against the appellant. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Thulia Kali Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1972) 3 SCC 393; State of Karnataka Vs. F. Nataraj, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 752 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pappu Vs. State of Delhi, reported in 2009 SCC OnLine, Del 1642. 6. On the other hand, the learned Addl. P.P. and the counsel for the Page No.# 4/19 respondent No.2 submit that there is no infirmity with the decision of the learned Trial Court in convicting the appellant, inasmuch as, penetration of the male organ to any extent in the vagina of the victim 4 ½ year old victim could be to any extent to attract Section 3(a) or 3(c) and Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act. They also submit that the Doctor having stated in his evidence that the genital findings were suggestive of vaginal manipulation, coupled with the evidence of the victim, showed that the appellant's case fell squarely within Section 3(a) and/or Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act. They also submit that the absence of any injury or the hymen remaining intact did not mean that no rape had occurred. Further, the evidence of the defense witnesses who saw the victim coming out of the house of the appellant crying, was suggestive of the fact that something bad had occurred to her. On considering the above facts with the evidence of the victim, the same corroborates the fact that the appellant had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim. In support of their submissions, they have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Babul Nath, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 29 and in the case of Ranjit Hazarika Vs. State of Assam, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 635. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The brief facts of the case is that an FIR dated 26/04/2022 was submitted to the O/c of the Barpeta Road Police Station by PW-1, who was the father of the victim. The FIR stated that on 25/04/2022 at around 5 p.m, the appellant took his daughter to his room, saying that he would give her a chocolate. However, he raped her and when the victim came home, she disclosed everything to her mother. Pursuant to the said FIR, Barpeta Road Page No.# 5/19 Police Station Case No.84/2022 under Section 376 AB IPC, read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act was registered. 9. After investigation was completed by the Investigating Officer, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant, wherein a prima facie case under section 376 AB IPC read with section 4 of the POCSO Act was found established against the appellant. 10. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed charge under section 6 of the POCSO Act, on the ground that the appellant had committed an offence falling under section 5 (m) of the POCSO Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 11. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 7 Prosecution Witnesses and 3 Defence Witnesses. After examining the appellant under section 313 Cr.PC, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the appellant had committed an offence punishable under section 6 of the POCSO Act and convicted him accordingly. 12. The evidence of the informant (PW-1) is to the effect that he knew the appellant and that his daughter was 5 years as on the date he gave evidence. On the day of the incident, when he reached home at around 9-9.30 p.m., his wife who was crying, told him that the appellant had taken their daughter to his house. Their daughter came home crying with a chocolate in hand and told her that the appellant had inserted his penis into her vagina. The appellant had also bitten the victim on her chest. On coming to know about the incident from his wife, he went to the house of the appellant and tried to bring him to their Page No.# 6/19 house. However, the appellant managed to run away. Later the appellant was caught at about 11-12 pm and was handed over to the Police. On the next day at about 10/11 a.m, he lodged an FIR, which he exhibited as Ext. P/1 and identified his signature. PW-1 further stated that the Birth Certificate of his daughter was seized and that her date of birth was 08/06/2017. 13. In his cross examination, PW-1 stated that the appellant was apprehended by one Kanak Barman, Bulbuli Barman and some other persons. The appellant was initially tied up with a rope and questioned about the incident, which he denied. On the Police being informed, the Police came and took away the appellant. PW-1 further stated that the appellant showed his affection towards the victim even before the incident and used to give the victim chocolates on previous occasions. 14. The learned Trial Court, prior to recording the evidence of the victim (PW-2), who was about 5 years old, put a few preliminary questions to her, to test her capacity to understand questions and give rational answers to the same. On being satisfied that the child was able to give rational answers to the questions put to her, the court felt that the victim had sufficient intelligence and maturity to give answers and knew the necessity of speaking the truth. Accordingly, she answered questions put to her wherein she clearly stated that the appellant's penis had been inserted into her vagina. The relevant portion of the victim's testimony before the learned Trial Court is reproduced herein below as follows:- “Q) Do You know accused? Ans: Yes I know him. I call him "Jethu". Page No.# 7/19 Q) What did "Jethu" do to you? Ans: One day in the evening Lime Jethu called me to his house by saying that he would give me a chocolate and he then put his "nunku" in my "sunu". (When asked what she means by "Nunku", she pointed towards the front side area of the toy where male organ exists) (When asked about she means by "sunu" she pointed to her vagina.) Jethu also bit me here (by putting her finger in her chest) Jethu also asked me not to disclose the same to my mother saying that if she tells her he would beat me up. I came home and told the incident to my mother. My mother did not ask me to tell anything false against the accused I was taken for medical examination after the incident. Police asked me about the incident. Jethu used to show affection to me. Jethu also gives chocolates to me. At the time of the incident there were other persons in the house of Jethu.” 15. The evidence of PW-3, who is the mother of the victim and the wife of the informant, is to the effect that she knew the appellant. On 25/04/2022, at about 5.00-6.00pm, while working in the veranda, the victim was playing outside their house. Then the appellant came and tried to take away her daughter from their house. Though PW-3 objected to the same, the appellant assured PW-3 that he would again drop her daughter to their house after some time. The appellant then took the victim to his house. However, as her daughter did not return, PW-3 asked her father-in-law to go to the house of the appellant to bring back her daughter. PW-3's father-in-law went to the house of the Page No.# 8/19 appellant and came back, telling PW-3 that the appellant would drop her daughter on his own. About half an hour later, the victim came home and closed the door. Her daughter while telling her what ‘bad act’ the appellant had done to her after removing her pants, threw her pant away. She started weeping and also told PW-3 that she was having pain in her private parts. On inspecting her private parts, PW-3 saw redness in the private parts of the victim. When her husband came home at about 9.30 pm, PW-3 narrated the incident to him. PW- 3 and her husband then went to the house of the appellant to inquire about the incident. At that moment, the appellant fled away. However, the family members of the appellant caught him and assaulted him for committing the crime. On her husband informing the Police about the incident, the Police picked up the appellant and took him to the Police Station on the same night. The FIR was then lodged by PW-1 the next morning and the victim was sent for medical examination. The victim and PW-3 were also brought before the magistrate and their statements were recorded. 16. In her cross-examination, PW-3 stated that the house of the appellant was about 5 minutes walking distance from their house. The appellant used to visit their house of and on. Further, her husband was a carpenter and used to work at Nalbari. PW-3 also stated that the police had seized the pant and the sporting (T-shirt)of her daughter. She also stated that as it was late night, her husband lodged the FIR the next morning though the Police had asked the informant to lodge the FIR on the night of the incident. PW-3 also denied the suggestion that her husband owed money to the appellant, due to which a false FIR had been submitted against the appellant. 17. The evidence of PW-4 is to the effect that he knew the informant and Page No.# 9/19 the appellant. He also stated that he was a seizure witness though he did not exactly remember what was seized and he did not remember the colour of the T-shirt that was seized. 18. The evidence of PW-5, who is the Senior Scientific Officer, Serology Division, Forensic Science Laboratory, Kahilipara, Assam, is to the effect that he examined various articles which had been seized by the police. The examination of the purple T-shirt one blue coloured jeans (half pant), one white coloured ganjee and one blue coloured gamosha, gave negative test for human blood and semen. The drops of blood in the filter paper and the blood sample of the appellate gave positive test for human blood, alhough there was no similarity with the other seized articles. 19. The evidence of PW-6, who is the Associate Professor of Department of Forensic Medicine, Fakaruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta, is to the effect that he examined the victim aged about 4 years, on 26/04/2022, in connection with Barpeta Road PS case no. 84/2022. Her medical examination showed that her hymen was intact though there was redness and tenderness on touch around the hymen. Her final opinion on the examination of the victim is reproduced herein below as follows:-. “Final Opinion: On the basis of physical (including dental) examination, laboratory & radiological investigation done on Nikita Barman, I am of the opinion that: (1) No evidence of recent sexual intercourse detected at the time of examination. However, genital finding suggestive of vaginal manipulation. (2) No evidence of violence mark detected on her private parts except the Page No.# 10/19 redness and tenderness around the hymen. In this connection, I have submitted my report. Ext.P-5/PW6 is the medical report submitted by me and Ext.P-5(i) and Ext.P-5(ii) are my signatures.” In his cross-examination, PW-6 stated that in case of forceful penetration upon a minor girl, there will be a tear in her hymen, which she did not find in the victim. 20. The evidence of PW-7 is to the effect that on 26/04/2022, an FIR was received at the Police Station, pursuant to which Barpeta Road PS case no. 84/2022 under section 376 (AB) IPC read with section 4 of the POCSO Act was registered. He took up investigation and examined the witnesses and the victim. He visited the place of occurrence and drew a sketch map of the place of occurrence. He also apprehended the appellant and interrogated him. He also stated that the statement of the victim and her mother was recorded under section 164 Cr. PC on 27/04/2022. He also seized one purple coloured T-shirt and one blue coloured jeans (half pant) of the victim. He also seized the birth certificate of the victim which recorded her date of birth as 07/06/2017. He also seized a white coloured Ganjee (vest) and blue coloured Gamosa of the appellant. Blood samples of the appellant were also collected and he sent all of them to the FSL for examination. 21. The evidence of DW-1, who is the younger brother of the appellant, is to the effect that he knew the informant who was his cousin. He also stated that the allegation that the appellant had raped the victim girl was false. He stated that on 25/04/2022 at about 5-5.30 pm, he was in his house and on that day at Page No.# 11/19 the relevant time, the victim was with the appellant in their house. At 9.30 pm when DW-1 went to attend the call of nature, a commotion took place outside their house. On reaching there, he noticed the appellant being assaulted by PW- 1, PW-4, Biplab Barman and one Uttam Saha, on the allegation that the appellant had raped the daughter of the informant (PW-1). Later Police came at about 12.30 a.m. and took the appellant to the Police Station. DW-1 stated that no rape took place and the case was filed only due to suspicion. DW-1 further stated that the victim girl always played with the appellant. He also stated that there was a land dispute between the informant and the appellant, due to which a false case had been filed. In his cross examination, DW-1 stated that he did not know who brought the victim to their house on the day of the incident, but she came to their house at about 4.00-5.00 pm. 22. The evidence of DW-2, who is the mother of the appellant, is to the effect that she knew the informant (PW-1), who was her nephew. DW-2 stated that at about 9.00 pm, while having dinner, she heard her son (appellant) screaming. On coming out from the house, she saw the informant (PW-1), PW-4 and Uttam Shah assaulting the appellant. DW-1 further stated that prior to the incident of assault, the victim girl had come out of their house crying at about 4.00 pm. DW-2 further stated that a false case had been filed against the appellant, because of a land dispute between the informant's father Sunil Barman and the appellant. 23. In his cross-examination, DW-2 stated that she had not brought any documents to show that there was a land dispute between the informant's Page No.# 12/19 father and the appellant. DW-2 admitted that the victim went away crying from their house at about 4.00 pm, on the day of the incident. DW-2 further stated that the victim girl did not tell them why she was crying. DW-2 also stated that there were three rooms in their house and the appellant stayed in a separate room. She also stated that the appellant was assaulted because of the bad act committed by him. 24. The evidence of DW-3 is to the effect that he knew the informant and the appellant. The incident took place on 25/04/2022. DW-3 stated that on the day of the incident, the victim girl went to the house of the appellant in the evening time at about 5.00 pm, during which time he was in a shop near his house. A little later, he saw the victim girl coming out of the house of the appellant crying. The victim girl proceeded towards her house. He later learnt that the victim girl fell from a bed inside the house of the appellant and that the appellant was present in his house at that time. DW-3 stated that he later heard that a case had been filed against the appellant on the grounds that he had raped the victim girl. In his evidence, DW-3 stated that there was a land dispute between the father of the informant Sunil Barman and the appellant. In his cross examination, DW-3 stated that he had not inspected the land documents showing there was a land dispute between the informant's side and the appellant. 25. In his examination under section 313 Cr. PC, the appellant stated that a false case had been lodged against him and that he had nothing to say in the matter. He however clarified that his mother and the father of the informant were brothers and sisters. He also stated that to deprive his mother of the share of the property of his grandfather, a false case had been lodged against him. Page No.# 13/19 26. The statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.PC is to the effect that the appellant had put his penis into her vagina and sucked her breasts. He had assaulted her and said that he would kill her if she told her mother. The appellant also kissed her buttocks. She further stated that he called her from his home in the evening and said that he would give her toffee. After returning home, she told her mother and took off the pants uttering “chi” (shit). It is seen that prior to recording the statement of the victim under section 164 of Cr. PC, a few questions were asked and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, who recorded the victim's statement, was satisfied that the child had the capacity to understand the questions put to her. 27. The statement of the victim's mother (PW-3) under section 164 of Cr. PC is to the effect that at about 5 p.m. on 25.04.2022, while she was lighting the lamp, the appellant who was the uncle of the victim, came to their home and told PW-3 that he will send the victim back after giving her toffee. Saying thus, the appellant took the victim away even though she disapproved. At 5.30 p.m., the victim came home alone and closed the door of the house and told her that her uncle took off her pants and inserted his penis into her vagina and that she screamed in pain. Then she took her pants off, urinated twice, put on different pants, while uttering “chi”. She threw the earlier pants on the sewing machine. PW-3 also stated that the victim told her to go and check outside and while going outside, she found nobody. When asked as to what happened, the victim told PW-3 that the appellant had bitten her breast, inserted his penis into her vagina and bit her vagina. On checking the victim's vagina, PW-3 found the upper side was red and inside it was “illegible”. The victim told PW-3 that she came home alone. She then told her husband about the incident around 9.00 p.m. PW-3 further stated that prior to the victim coming home, she had sent the Page No.# 14/19 victim's grandfather to bring her back from the appellant's house, but the appellant did not let him bring her back. 28. In the case of F Nataraj (Supra), the Supreme Court has held that though it may be true that the rupture of the hymen may not occur in all cases of sexual intercourse, but it is the burden of the prosecution to extract from the medical examiner examining a rape victim, whether the nature of the hymen was such that it could remain intact despite there being intercourse with the girl on several occasions within a period of 15 to 20 days. The Supreme Court further held that the medical examiner in the above case of F Nataraj (Supra) had merely mentioned that there were no signs of recent sexual intercourse, which was inadequate to establish that sexual intercourse took place before that at all. We are of the view that the above decision is not applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, this is not a case of there being intercourse on several occasions. This is a case where the victim has been allegedly subjected to penetrative sexual assault once. A reading of section 3 of the POCSO Act provides that penetration to any extent would amount to penetrative sexual assault. There is nothing to show that there was full penetration of the penis of the appellant into the private parts of the 4 year old girl. A minute penetration or partial penetration may not rupture the hymen. Further, in terms of Medical Jurisprudence (5th edition by Dr. R. M. Jhala and V. B. Raju) provides that next to the hymen in positive importance but more than that in frequency are injuries on the labia majora, which are the first to be encountered by the male organ. They are subjected to blunt forceful blows, depending on the vigour and force used by the accused and counteracted by the victim. In case of girls under 12 years where examination of hymen may not prove useful, examination of labia majora gives conclusive evidence. The narrowness of the canal makes it Page No.# 15/19 inevitable for the male organ to inflict blunt, forceful blows on the labia, which invariably lead to contusion, because of looseness and vascularity. 29. The evidence of the doctor and the medical report shows that though the hymen of the victim was intact, there is redness and tenderness on touch around the hymen. This could in all probability be the labia majora. Further, the final opinion of the doctor is that there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse detected at the time of examination or violence mark, except the redness and tenderness around the hymen. However, the genital finding was suggestive of vaginal manipulation. 30. On considering the evidence of PW-2, which is corroborated by her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C, is to the effect that the penis of the appellant had been put inside her vagina, points to the fact that there was penetration of the appellant's penis into the vagina of the victim. This penetration would, in all probability, be to a very small extent, keeping in view the fact that the victim was only 4 years old at that time. The question of whether there was penetration of the penis into the vagina of a victim would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, we are convinced with the truthfulness of the evidence of the victim girl, which has been corroborated by her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C, even though the penetration of the appellant's penis into the vagina of the victim girl would, in all probability, be to a small extent. 31. The above being said, in the case of Ranjit Hazarika vs. State of Assam reported in (1998) 8 SCC 635, the Supreme Court has held that non- rupture of the hymen nor the absence of injuries on the private parts does not Page No.# 16/19 belie the statement of the prosecutrix that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. The Supreme Court further held that the opinion of the Doctor that no rape appeared to have been committed, was based only on the absence of the rupture of the hymen and injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix. This opinion could not throw out an otherwise cogent and trustworthy evidence of the prosecutrix. The Supreme Court also held that unless there were compelling reasons, which necessitated looking for corroboration of the statement of the prosecutrix, the Court 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. 32. In the case of State of UP v. Babul Nath reported in (1994) 6 SCC 29, the Supreme Court held that Section 375 of the IPC defined rape and the explanation to Section 375 stated that penetration was sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. To constitute the offence of rape, Section 375 IPC nor the explanation required complete penetration of the penis into the private parts of the victim. It also did not require rupture of the hymen. Even a partial or slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda or even an attempt into the private parts of the victim, would be enough for the purpose of Section 375 and 376 IPC to constitute rape. 33. In the present case, Section 3 of the POCSA Act states as follows:- “3. Penetrative sexual assault.—A person is said to commit “penetrative sexual assault” if— (a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra Page No.# 17/19 or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or (b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or (c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or (d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person.” 34. If we have to go by the final opinion of the Doctor with regard to whether there was penetration, it may be possible to come to a finding that there was no penetration of the penis into the vagina of the victim. However, the genital findings were suggestive of vaginal manipulation by his penis, with an attempt to insert it. Keeping in view the above and the fact that the victim's evidence was to the effect that the appellant’s penis had to some extent been put into her vagina, the same would positively attract Section 3(b) of the POCSO Act. 35. Keeping the above in view and the fact that the child was less than 12 years at the relevant time, Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act is attracted and thus Section 6 would have to be applied, the offence being punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Page No.# 18/19 36. With regard to the stand taken by the appellant’s counsel that there was a delay in lodging the FIR as the FIR had been lodged the day after the incident, we find that though the mother of the victim had come to know about the incident sometime around 5.00 p.m. on 25/04/2022, the same was told by her to her husband (PW-1) at around 9.30 pm. The appellant was apparently arrested sometime around 12.30 a.m. of 26/04/2022 and the FIR was lodged at around 12.50 noon on 26/04/2022. On considering the fact that the victim resided in a village in the district of Barpeta, we do not find any real delay in filing the FIR. 37. No doubt an FIR should be filed at the earliest opportunity as held by the Supreme Court in Thulia Kali (Supra), to avoid embellishments and concoction of facts. However, this is a case where there has been an aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 4 year old girl and the events as it unfolded, shows that there is little time difference between the arrest of the appellant and the FIR filed on the same day, around 12.50 noon. 38. The above being said, not only do we find that the evidence of the prosecutrix has been corroborated by her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C, but we also find that her presence in the house of the appellant has been corroborated by the Defence Witnesses. The fact that the victim was seen leaving the appellant’s house crying is also not denied by the Defence Witnesses. The appellant and the Defence Witnesses have not given any reason as to why the victim had left the house of the appellant crying. However, the victim had gone home alone from the house of the appellant, even though the appellant had promised the mother of the victim that he would bring the victim back to the house after some time. Further, the appellant had apparently fled Page No.# 19/19 from his house when PW-1 and others wanted to inquire about what happened to the victim. 39. In view of all the reasons stated above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the conviction of the appellant under section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 40. Send back the TCR. 41. In appreciation of the assistance provided by Ms. M.K. Brown, learned Amicus Curiae, her fees shall be paid by the Gauhati High Court Legal Service Committee. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant Kuntal Datta Digitally signed by Kuntal Datta Date: 2026.05.26 10:54:08 +05'30'