The court affirmed that sufficient evidence, including medical testimony, justified the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act for penetrative sexual assault on a minor, rejecting claims for lesser charges.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.142/2017 by the II Additional District and Sessions (Special) Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution that the parents of the victim boy are employed in the Bank. On 13.06.2016, both of them had gone to attend their respective work. On that day, their children and their mother were in the house. In the noon, son of the complainant aged about 11 years made a telephone call to the complainant and asked him to come home immediately. Accordingly, when the complainant came home and enquired the victim, he discloses that on that day at about 12.20 p.m., accused, who is a scrap collector had come to their house and asked family members whether they had any scrap materials. At that time, grandmother of the victim boy told that there was no scrap material in their house. Inspite of that, accused asked the victim boy to come to the back of the house on the pretext of searching for scrap materials. When the victim boy went behind the house, accused held him firmly and gave a kiss on his cheek. Thereafter, by using force, he removed the shorts and made him not to move and penetrated his penis to the anus of the victim boy. Victim boy shouted and accused put his hand on his mouth and also threatened him. Again victim boy shouted loudly and thereafter accused ran away from that place.

4. Based on these allegations, a complaint came to be lodged against the accused and the police have registered the case invoking Section 3 77 of IPC and Sections 3 (a), 4, 8 and 12 of POCSO Act against the accused and investigated the matter and filed the charge- sheet. Accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claims for trial. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW10 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P10 and material objects as MO1 to MO10. The accused subjected for 313 statement and he did not choose to lead any evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record particularly, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 wherein they deposed that on the date of incident, accused has come to the complainant’s house for collecting scrap materials and thereafter, in the pretext of searching for scrap materials, accused took the victim to the backyard of the house and committed unnatural offence on the minor victim boy. The evidence of neighbourer i.e., PW3 also discloses that on the date of incident, accused came to his house first asking for scrap material and thereafter PW3 had seen the accused going to the house of complainant. Evidence of PW3 further discloses that after half an hour, he heard screaming sound of PW1 and immediately, PW3 had gone to the house of PW1 and had seen the accused running from the spot and PW1 was weeping. When enquired, PW1 narrated the incident and PW3 suggested him to inform his father over phone. Accordingly, intimation was given to the father of the victim at about 12.30 p.m. stating the incident and immediately, PW2 came to home and enquired with victim and thereafter immediately lodged the complaint. The Trial Court also considered the evidence of doctor who has been examined as PW4 who deposed that after the incident, immediately, the boy was taken to the hospital and his opinion is that anal intercourse could have occurred because of mucosal tear of anterior wall and because of tenderness near the anal region