The court affirmed that testimony from a child witness can be admissible and sufficient for conviction if the child understands the questions asked, and there is corroboration from other credible witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. UMA, J.

The appellant being the accused in Special Case No.394/2019 on the file of the learned FTSC-1 Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is impugning the Judgment of conviction and order of Sentence dated 06.10.2023, convicting him for the offences punishable under Section 342 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short 'the IPC') and Sections 8 and 9(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POCSO Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 342 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years with a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years with a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 9 (m) of the POCSO Act, with default sentences.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, PW1 is the victim, aged 3 years. It is the contention of the prosecution that on 08.10.2018, the accused, who was aged 52 years, induced her of giving chocolate, took her to his house and committed penetrative sexual assault and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 342 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The accused has appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty for the above said offences.

4. The prosecution examined PWs1 to 13, and got marked Exs.P1 to 12 and identified MOs.1 to 10 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but has not led any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the commission of the offences punishable under Section 342 of IPC and under Section 8 and 9(m) of the POCSO Act, while holding that the prosecution has not proved commission of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Accordingly, the accused was convicted and sentenced as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this court.

5. Heard Sri. Vinay Shreyas K.V., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Harish Ganapathy, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Smt. Manoranjini, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

6. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the appellant-accused has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?

My answer to the above point is 'negative' for the following:

REASONS

7. It is the contention of the prosecution that the victim, who is examined as PW1 was aged 3 years and the accused was aged 52 years. He was residing in the same locality. On the date of incident i.e., 08.10.2018, taking advantage of the situation that the child was all alone, he lured her by giving chocolates and took her to his house, where he committed penetrative sexual assault. This fact was informed by the child to her mother-PW2, who noticed soiling of the clothes of the child and questioned the accused.