The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that corroboration is not required for the testimony of the victim in case of rape if the evidence is of sterling quality. The judgment also emphasized the interpretation of 'rape' under Section 375 of the IPC, highlighting the requirement of penetration and the definition of 'rape' based on previous court decisions.

JUDGMENT

M G Sewlikar, J. - The appellant has challenged his conviction under Sections 376 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Aurangabad dated 10/07/2019 in Special Case Child Prot. No. 38/2017. The appellant has been sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant came to be acquitted under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act as age of the victim could not be proved to be of 14 years at the time of the incident.

2. Facts leading to this appeal can be succinctly stated as under:

. The victim aged 14 years at the time of the incident was adopted by the accused/appellant herein as her father died during her childhood and her mother abandoned her. Since then she has been living with the accused and his wife (DW-2). At the time of the incident she was studying in 7 th standard.

3. The victim has alleged that on 16/12/2016 her mother had gone to Chikhalthana. Therefore, the victim and her father (the appellant) were at home. After having dinner, the victim went off to sleep. At 10.00 p.m., the appellant slept beside her and pressed her breast. The victim woke up. The appellant asked her to remove her salwar. The victim resisted his advances. The appellant took off her salwar and took off his undergarments and placed his penis on her vagina and tried to insert it but he could not insert it. Thereafter, the victim went off to sleep again.

4. It is further alleged in the FIR that on 17/12/2016 when the victim was asleep, at 12.00 in the night she woke up as the appellant had pressed her breast. The appellant took off her salwar and threatened her not to shout else she would be done away with. He took off his clothes and placed his penis on the vagina. But he could not insert it. The victim suffered pains. The appellant again made the attempt to insert, but again he failed. Thereafter, there was discharge of semen. The victim put on her salwar and went off to sleep. Her salwar had semen stains. It is further alleged in the FIR that the appellant had made these attempts 2-3 times about 8 to 10 months before the incident in question. She had narrated these incidents to her teacher (PW-4). On these allegations she lodged FIR on 18/12/2016. On the basis of this FIR, offence under Sections 376 and 506(2) of the IPC and under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act came to be registered.

5. Investigation was taken up. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and on the disclosure of the offence charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant.

6. Charge was framed at Exhibit 7 under Sections 376, 506(2) of the IPC and under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. Prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. The accused examined two witnesses in defence.

7. Defence of the accused is of total denial. It is also defence of the accused that the victim was seen in the company of 'A' (mention of his name is avoided in accordance with the directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nipun Saxena and Another Vs. Union of India and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 703 and directions of this Court in the case of Sangita Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Criminal Public Interest Litigation No. 1 of 2016, decided on 19/01/2021) who is the son of his wife's brother 'B' (mention of his name avoided for the same reason). Her conduct was not good. Therefore, the victim was asked to vacate the room. It was also the defence of the accused that the share of wife of the appellant was sold by 'B' and his son. Her share in the land was 3 acres 5 gunthas. On that account 'B' had thre