Proper adherence to the procedures for contradicting witnesses' statements is crucial in establishing the credibility of evidence. Corroboration of the victim's testimony, along with medical evidence, is essential in establishing the offence of sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

B.A. Patil, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused No. 1 challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 18.01.2011, passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Koppal, in Sessions Case No. 46/2010.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused No. 1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

3. The genesis of the complaint is that the complainant along with the daughter of her brother-in-law had been to the land on 30.01.2010 to pluck chilli grown on the land. The complainant was busy in doing the field work and, at about 5.00 p.m. after completing her work, she found that the victim was not present there. She heard the scream of the victim from the land of the accused. She immediately went and found that the victim was crying; and accused No. 1, on seeing the complainant, ran away from that place. On enquiry, the victim told that accused No. 1 committed sexual assault on her. Subsequently, the complainant informed the said fact to the elders of the family and lodged a complaint. On the basis of the said complaint a case was registered.

4. After investigation a chargesheet came to be filed against accused Nos. 1 to 3. The matter was committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court took cognizance of the matter, secured presence of the accused and, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused on the charge, framed the charge, read over the same to the accused. The accused denied the same. Thereafter, case was fixed for trial.

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution got examined thirteen witnesses as PWs. 1 to 13, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.19 and got marked M.Os.1 and 2. After hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the Court below came to the conclusion that there is material as against the appellant/accused No. 1 and he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the Court below acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 3 of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, appellant/accused No. 1 is before this Court.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No. 1 that M.O.1 underwear of the victim, was given in the hospital and, at the time, it was stained with blood, but when the Investigating Officer was examined before the Court, he has deposed that M.O.1 was given in the police station, and thus there is contradiction in the statement of the Investigating Officer and PW-1. He further submitted that there is no corroboration in the evidence of PW-1 complainant, PW-4 (victim) and the doctor who came to be examined as PW-9. It is his further submission that in Ex.P.12, no such injuries were found over the body of the victim for having been sexually assaulted. It is his further submission that PW-4, the victim girl, is a minor and her entire evidence clearly goes to show that PW-4 is a tutored witness and she has accordingly deposed before the Court. It is his further submission that though Exs.D.1 and D.2 have been got marked, but surprisingly, the same is not found in the evidence of PW-1 or PW-4. It is his further submission that if the entire evidence of Investigating Officer is perused, it is seen that there is no consistency and the entire case of the prosecution when looked closely cannot be believed. It is his further submission that in the final report, which has been got marked as Ex.D.3, the doctor has opined that the possibility of attempt of sexual intercourse cannot be excluded and the same shows that it is only an attempt and not a sexual assault as alleged by the complainant and the victim. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader veheme