Dimapur court convicts Amos Ngullie of rape, sentences him to 10 years, while POCSO charges fail over age proof
DIMAPUR — The Fast Track Special Court, POCSO, Dimapur, has convicted a man named Amos Ngullie of rape and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment, while acquitting him of the charges under POCSO Act after the prosecution failed to properly establish the victim’s age.
Special Judge Khesheli Chishi pronounced the judgment earlier this month and imposed a fine of INR 2,000 on Ngullie.
The court found that the prosecution had not proved that the victim was below 18 at the time of the alleged offence, a requirement for invoking the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
According to the judgement, the prosecution produced only a photocopy of the victim’s birth certificate. The court held that the photocopy could not by itself establish her age, as the original document had not been produced and the authority that issued it had not been examined to prove its authenticity.
Also read: Nagaland court sentences man to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment in POCSO case
The prosecution also did not explain why the original birth certificate could not be produced or take the required steps to establish the admissibility of the photocopy as secondary evidence, the order stated.
As a result, the court held that the charges under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and Section 376(3) of IPC could not be sustained for want of proper proof of age.
The court, however, found the evidence sufficient to establish the offence of rape under Section 376 of IPC.
The case dates back to an FIR registered at the Women Police Station, Dimapur, on April 17, 2024, following a complaint by the victim’s father. The victim was reportedly staying with the accused’s family while pursuing her studies.
In assessing the evidence, the court examined the victim’s statements recorded during the investigation as well as her deposition before the trial court. It found no material inconsistencies that would cast doubt on her account.
The court also considered evidence relating to an incident in which the accused’s wife allegedly attempted to record a video of the victim stating that she had engaged in sexual relations with Ngullie consensually. While noting that the evidence concerning the incident had not been disproved, the court said that it lent support to the victim’s account.
Medical evidence was also taken into consideration: the doctor who examined the victim found no fresh injuries, noting that the alleged incident had taken place some time earlier, but observed an old tear of the hymen. The court held that the medical findings were consistent with the victim’s testimony.
The court further noted that Ngullie was in a position of authority over those staying at his house, which ‘was relevant while assessing the evidence.’
It held that the victim’s testimony, read with the other evidence on record, was sufficient to establish the offence of rape. Minor differences in the terminology used by the victim, it stated, did not affect the substance of her account.
The court, however, found the evidence insufficient to convict Ngullie under Sections 354A (1) and 506 of IPC.
JOIN OUR WHATSAPP CHANNEL