The credibility of witnesses and corroborative evidence, such as medical examination, are crucial in establishing guilt in sexual offence cases involving minors.

JUDGEMENT :

G. A. SANAP, J.

1. In this appeal, challenge is to the Judgment and order, dated 15.11.2016, passed by the learned Special Judge, Wardha whereby the appellant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i), Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code [for short ‘IPC’] and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [for short ‘POCSO Act’] and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

In order to hide the identity of the minor girl in this Judgment she is referred as ‘victim’.

PW-5- Jyoti is the mother of the victim. First Information Report was registered on her oral report dated 18.01.2013. PW-5, mother of the victim, had reported to the police that the appellant Sidharth @ Bollywood Meshram was residing at his sister’s house in the same locality. The victim was born on 16.08.2005. At the time of incident the victim was studying in 2nd standard. She has stated in her report that on 18.01.2013 in the evening she came to know about the incident. She is doing work as a Maid Servant. When she came back from her work at 19:00 hours, the women from her locality namely Jangle Madam, Kale bai and mother of one Jugal were standing near her house. The victim was with them. At that time, Jangle Madam informed her that the appellant had committed outrageous act with the victim. Jangle Madam in brief narrated the incident to her. The informant took the victim to her house. On her inquiry the victim disclosed that 7 days before, the appellant on the pretext of giving chocolate took her in his house. The appellant shut the door of his house. The appellant told her that she had worn her undergarments on a wrong side. The appellant removed her undergarment as well as removed his clothes. The appellant slept on her body. The appellant touched his private part to the private part of the victim. The victim started shouting. The appellant gagged her mouth and threatened her not to shout. It is stated that the victim further informed PW-5 that the appellant threatened her to repeat the said act if the incident was disclosed by the victim to anybody. On the next day in the morning i.e. on 19.01.2013 PW-5 with the victim went to the Police Station and reported the matter to the police. On the basis of her report, crime bearing No. 44 of 2013, for the above offences, came to be registered against the appellant. PW-7 Vanmala Pardhi, API, attached to Wardha City Police Station conducted the investigation. She sent the victim for medical examination. She also sent the appellant, on arrest, for medical examination. PW-7 drew the spot panchnama. Various articles and blood samples were seized during the investigation. PW-7 recorded the statements of the witnesses and on completion of the investigation filed the charge-sheet against the appellant in Special Court.

3. The learned Special Judge vide Exh. 3 framed the charge against the appellant. The appellant on being explained the contents of the Charge pleaded not guilty to the charge. His defence is of total denial. In order to bring home guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. The prosecution tendered documentary evidence. The learned Special Judge on consideration of the material on record, found the appellant guilty of the above offences and convicted the appellant and sentenced him as above. Being aggrieved by this Judgment and order, the appellant has come before this Court in appeal.

4. We have heard the learned Advocate for th