The victim's testimony in a sexual assault case stands at a higher pedestal than injured witness and needs no corroboration.

JUDGMENT :

1. Appellant has questioned correctness of Judgment and Order dated 24th June, 2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, under the POCSO Act, Greater Mumbai in POCSO Special Case No.158 of 2016, convicting him for the offences punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offcences Act, 2012 (for short, “the POCSO Act”) and is sentenced to suffer maximum rigorous imprisonment for 15 years under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and to pay a total fine amount of Rs.56,000/-.

2. Heard Smt. Patil, learned Advocate for the Appellant and Smt. Kaushik, learned APP for the Respondent-State. Perused entire record.

3. The victim in the present crime was aged about 5 years on the date of lodgment of the crime and with a view to protect her identity and in consonance with the provisions of Section 228(A) of the IPC and Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act, the detailed narration of the facts and other details disclosing identity of the victim and/or her mother are hereinafter avoided.

4. The prosecution case in nutshell is that, the Appellant was neighbour of the informant i.e. the mother (PW-1) of victim (PW-2) for number of years. They were having cordial relations and therefore the daughter of the informant (PW-1) i.e. victim herein (PW-2) and her nephew used to visit the house of Appellant for playing.

On the date of incident, i.e. on 4th February, 2016, the victim was aged about 5 years and was taking education in Senior K.G.. That, on 4th February, 2016, when the informant had been to the water tap for fetching water, she noticed that her daughter near the gutter and was trying to pass urine. However, she started shouting loudly as there was burning sensation at the time of passing urine. Informant (PW-1) therefore inspected private part of the victim (PW-2) and noticed that, it had turned reddish. She therefore, applied “Ghee” to her private part. The informant made inquiry with the victim and after taking her into confidence, the victim confided with her mother and disclosed that, when she was playing outside in the noon at about 4.00 p.m., the Appellant called her inside his house and took her on its loft along with the mobile headphone which was in the said room. The victim accordingly took the said headphone on the loft. The Appellant played with the victim for some time and thereafter he removed her legging and inner wear and penetrated his penis in the vagina of victim and committed penetrative sexual assault with her. Due to the said act of the Appellant, victim started crying. The Appellant allowed the victim to leave the said place by giving threats not to disclose the said incident to anybody.

Informant thereafter took the victim to Dr. Bhagyashree B. Mete (PW-3) who examined the victim and advised informant to report it to the police. Informant (PW-1) along with her husband thereafter went to Bhandup Police Station and registered crime No.51 of 2016.

Police Sub Inspector, Sahadev L. Bhosale (PW-9) recorded first information report and started investigation. He immediately conducted spot panchanama (Exh-28) in presence of panch witness Pradip G. Munde (PW-4). He referred the victim for medical examination to Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College & General Hospital, Sion, Mumbai (for short, “LTMGH Sion, Mumbai”). The concerned hospital issued medical reports. PSI Bhosale (PW-9) arrested the Appellant. During the course of investigation, the police referred the victim (PW-2) to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 54th Court Mazgaon, Mumbai for recording her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”). Learned Magistrate recorded statement of victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Exh-16) on 26th February, 2016. After receipt of necessary reports and completion of investigation, PW-9 submitted charge-sheet before the Special Court.

5. Trial Court framed charge below Exh-3 under