IMPORTANT POINT
Aggravated sexual assault on girl child – Conviction and sentence – Medical evidence will take a backseat even if do not corroborate with ocular evidence, where ocular evidence is consistent and cogent, later would be allowed to prevail.

JUDGMENT

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Heard learned Advocate Ms. Varnika Gupta for the Appellant and learned Advocate Ms. Ankita Sharma for the respondent who appeared through video conferencing.

2. At the instance of appellant–convict, the challenge in this present appeal is addressed to judgment and order dated 06.03.2025 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 1348 of 2023. Thereby the High Court dismissed the appeal before it and confirmed judgment and order dated 18.04.2023 of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh in Special Case No. 17 of 2021.

2.1. Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 9(m) and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and further imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further normal imprisonment for one year.

3. Stated in nutshell, as the prosecution case goes, the incident of commission of crime took place on 15.08.2021. The mother of the victim reported that her husband returned home with one Virendra and appellant Dinesh Ram, after collecting the coal wood. It was around 4:30 p.m. when the mother of the victim went inside to give food to the appellant and at that time, she found that the appellant had wore only half short (Chadda) and was sitting near the legs of her minor daughter aged 4 years. On being questioned and confronted by the mother, the appellant fled away. The mother (PW-3) noticed that the clothing of her daughter had gone inappropriate, and that her daughter was crying in pain. The victim told her that she had pain in her private part. The mother found the private part of the daughter to be wet.

3.1. On the same day an FIR bearing Crime No. 52 of 2021 was registered with Duldula Police Station, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh by the mother of the victim Sukanti Bai (PW-3) against the appellant under Section 376, 376 AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’). The victim was sent for medical examination and came to be examined by Dr. Priyanka Toppo (PW-6), her statement came to be recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Judicial Magistrate. The appellant came to be arrested.

3.2. The birth certificate of the victim seized by the police reflected that the date of birth of the victim was 13.02.2017, establishing that the age of the victim was between 4 to 5 years. A chargesheet was filed in respect of the offences under IPC and under the POCSO Act as mentioned above. At the end of the trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced under the POCSO Act, which conviction and sentence, was confirmed by the High Court.

4. On behalf of the appellant, assailing the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellant, it was mainly contended that there were no eyewitnesses to fortify the occurrence of incident and the narration of the incident by the mother (PW-3) of the victim was not supported by independent evidence. Nowhere there were any marks of any external injury on the victim, nor there was bleeding on her private part as per the Medical Officer (PW-6) evidence, submitted learned advocate for the appellant. It was next submitted that the redness in the vagina seen could happen by rubbing over the clothes by the victim or due to infection. It was therefore vehemently submitted that the appellant deserved benefit of doubt and should have been acquitted.

4.1. On the other hand, learned advocate for the State of Chhattisgarh supported the conviction and sentence, to submit that they were based on clear facts, cogent circumstances and reliable evidence.

5. While examining the merits of conviction and sentence of the appellant, the material evidence may be usefully noticed which offers a detailed account of the incident. Father (PW-2) and mother (PW-3) of the victim were consistent. Th