A girl of 13 left home at night with her elder sister’s husband. The defence said she went willingly. The Gauhati High Court answered in one line: “a minor is not capable of giving a valid consent”. In Raju Gogoi @ Rajen v. State of Assam, decided on 11 November 2026, Justice M. Zothankhuma upheld the conviction under Section 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and the 20-year sentence.
Case at a glance
- Case: Raju Gogoi @ Rajen v. State of Assam & Anr., CRL.A(J)/116/2024
- Neutral citation: 2026:GAUAS:16500
- Bench: Justice M. Zothankhuma, Gauhati High Court
- Reserved: 4 November 2026. Pronounced: 11 November 2026
- Trial court: Special Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur, Special (POCSO) Case No. 04/2023, judgment dated 30 January 2024
- Sentence upheld: 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment and Rs 10,000 fine under Section 6 POCSO; 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment and Rs 3,000 fine under Section 366 IPC
- Result: Appeal dismissed
What happened
On 22 July 2022, the appellant’s wife lodged an FIR at North Lakhimpur police station. She said her husband had taken away her younger sister at night. The police later recovered the girl and the appellant from Laluk. The girl was medically examined on 28 July 2022.
The girl testified that the appellant took her away and raped her. The trial court convicted him and imposed the minimum sentence of 20 years under Section 6 POCSO. He appealed from jail.
Defence arguments
- The informant and the victim gave different versions of the sleeping arrangements, and the victim named different places where she was taken.
- The bamboo wall said to have been broken was never seized.
- The doctor found no external injuries and no spermatozoa.
- No birth certificate was produced, and the ossification test put her age between 14 and 18.
- The appellant said the case was false, filed because his wife would not return to the matrimonial home.
What the Court held
1. School register proves the age; no ossification test needed
The headmaster, examined as a court witness, produced the school admission register and a certificate. Both recorded the date of birth as 10 January 2009. The father’s evidence matched that timeline. Under the order of proof in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, a school record comes first; a medical age test is needed only when such records are not available. The Court held that “the date of birth of the victim would have to be considered to be 10/01/2009”. She was about 13 and a half on the date of the incident.
2. A minor’s consent is no consent
Even if the girl went with the appellant willingly, it made no difference. Taking a minor girl out of her guardian’s keeping is kidnapping, and the offence under Section 366 IPC was made out. Sexual intercourse with her was aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act, whatever she said at the time.
3. Minor contradictions do not shake the case
The inconsistencies about the sleeping arrangements and the places she was taken did not go to the root of the case. The ruptured hymen recorded by the doctor corroborated her account of intercourse.
4. No injuries is not proof of no rape
The State relied on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh, (2019) 16 SCC 759: absence of injuries does not by itself make a rape case doubtful. The medical examination here took place about six days after the girl was taken away.
Why it matters
- “She went willingly” is not a defence under POCSO. The law fixes 18 as the age of consent; a child’s agreement has no legal value.
- Age is proved by documents first. A school admission register, proved by the headmaster, outweighs a broad ossification range.
- The 20-year minimum stands. Section 6 POCSO, as amended in 2019, prescribes at least 20 years for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
Exam angle
- Age of consent under POCSO: 18. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship (Section 361 IPC, now Section 137 BNS) covers a girl under 18.
- Age determination of a victim follows Section 94 JJ Act, 2015 (Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263).
- Section 366 IPC corresponds to Section 87 BNS; offences after 1 July 2024 are charged under the BNS.