The admissibility of evidence from hostile witnesses and the importance of corroborating evidence in establishing guilt.

JUDGMENT :

By this appeal, the appellant has impugned the judgment and order dated 4th August 2017 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 185 of 2016, by which the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under :—

for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(i), (n) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year;

- out of the said amount of fine, an amount of Rs. 3,000/was directed to be paid to the victim as compensation.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as under:—

The prosecutrix, a minor girl, aged 13 years (hereinafter referred to as ‘X’), was residing at Solapur with her mother in her maternal uncle’s house, at the relevant time. The complainant (PW2), the father of ‘X’, was residing at Osmanabad and would come to Solapur to meet his wife and children including ‘X’. According to the complainant (PW2), when he visited Solapur on 10th March 2016, to meet his wife and children, ‘X’ complained of stomach ache, pursuant to which, he bought medicines from a chemist and gave it to her. After taking medicines ‘X’s pain subsided. However, again on 12th March 2016, ‘X’ complained of stomach ache, pursuant to which, PW2 (Complainant) and his wife took ‘X’ to the Civil Hospital, at Solapur. On examination, ‘X’ was found to be pregnant. On inquiry with ‘X’, she disclosed that the appellant had sexually assaulted her on 45 occasions, in her maternal uncle’s house. PW2 informed the said fact, to his brother-in-law. The complainant (PW2) also informed this to the doctor, on the basis of which M.L.C. was registered.

Thereafter, the complainant lodged an FIR/Complaint with the Ashok Chowk Police Chowki, Solapur, which was registered vide CR No. 117 of 2016, as against the appellant alleging offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After investigation chargsheet was filed as against the appellant, in the Special Court. Charges were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant was of denial and false implication.

The prosecution in support of its case, examined four witnesses;

PW1 – The prosecutrix (‘X); PW2 Complainant (Father of ‘X’);

PW3 Madhura Pundalik Bhaskar, PSI, attached to Ashok Chowk Police

Chowky, Solapur, at the relevant time; and PW4 – Manmath Ramchandra Ukarande, Head Master of School, where ‘X’ was studying. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated aforesaid in paragraph 1.

3. Mr. Natu, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegations as against the appellant are false and baseless. He submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove that ‘X’ was a minor, at the time of alleged incident. He submitted that even the DNA report (Exh.47) cannot be relied upon, as the same has not been proved by the prosecution. Learned counsel submits that as PW1 (Prosecutrix) and PW2 (Complainant) have turned hostile, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as against the appellant and as such the appellant’s conviction cannot be sustained. Learned counsel has tendered written submissions in support of his submissions.

4. Learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. He submitted that the evidence on record clearly shows the complicity of the appellant in the alleged crime. He submitted that the appellant had under Section 294 Cr.P.C. admitted the spot panchanama and the map (Exh.13); the appellant’s own medical reports (Exh.14); the medical reports of ‘X’ (Exh.15) and CA reports (Exh.16), thus clearly pointing to his complicity in the crime. As far as the DNA report is