The victim's testimony in a sexual assault case holds significant weight and may not require corroboration. The principle of proportionality influences the determination of sentences.

JUDGEMENT :

1. By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 13th January, 2016, the Appellant has been convicted under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and under Sections 4 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “the POCSO Act”) and is sentenced to suffer maximum rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a total fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment of specified term, by the learned Special Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.202 of 2014.

2. Heard Ms. Sawant, learned Advocate appointed by the High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai to represent Appellant and Smt. Kaushik, learned APP for the State. Perused entire record.

3. The victim in the present crime was aged about 11 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 facts and other details disclosing her identity and/or identity of her mother are hereinafter avoided.

4. The prosecution case in nutshell is that, victim was 11 years of age on the date of commission of crime i.e. on 22nd April, 2014 and was studying in 4th Standard in Z. P. School. Victim is handicapped by leg. Appellant was also resident of the same village and engaged in the business of connection of cable TV. On the day of incident, the victim was at home due to summer vacation. The father of victim had gone to Akkalkot for work. Under the instructions of her mother (PW-2), victim (PW-3) called Appellant for connection of cable TV in their newly constructed house. Appellant accordingly visited the house of the victim. As there was shortage of electric wire, the mother of victim brought it from the nearby shop and gave it to the Appellant for doing necessary work. While the Appellant was busy in his work of connecting cable TV, Smt. Nagarbai Salgare (PW-4) came to the house of victim (PW-3) and asked her mother (PW-2) to accompany her to the agricultural field. On inquiry with Appellant, he informed the mother of victim that, after completion of cable TV connection work he would leave their house. That, due to the assurance by the Appellant, the mother of victim went along with Smt. Nagarbai Salgare (PW-4) to her agricultural land.

5. It is the further prosecution case that, after completion of cable TV connection work, Appellant closed the door and window of the house, raised volume of the TV; pulled the victim towards him and pressed her body. Appellant thereafter removed her nicker and inserted his fingers in her vagina. Victim therefore started to shout whereupon the Appellant threatened her to keep quiet. Victim started heavily sweating and looking the same, Appellant ran away from her house. At that time, nobody was present in the vicinity of the said house. Victim thereafter called her cousin brother by name Amol on his mobile and informed the fact of Appellant misbehaved with her. Cousin brother of the victim immediately approached her mother and both of them came to their house. Victim narrated the incident to her mother. After returning of the father of victim from his work, her mother (PW-2) along with father and other persons approached Akkalkot North Police Station and lodged the present crime.

6. After lodgment of crime, the victim was immediately referred to the Civil Hospital, Solapur. Dr. Prabhakar S. Gavandi (PW-5), examined victim and prepared necessary case papers (Exh-22 colly.). He also prepared medical case record (Exh-24). After completion of investigation, investigating Officer Shri. Ganeshprasad Bharate (PW-6) submitted charge-sheet for the offence alleged against Appellant before the Special Court.

7. Trial Court framed charge below Exh-6 under Sections 376(2) (i) of the IPC and under Section 3(b) r/w Section 4 and under Section 9 r/w Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The contents of the charge were read o