The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the testimony of the victim in sexual offence cases to be of sterling quality and supported by corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. By this appeal, Appellant is challenging judgment and conviction passed by the learned President, Children's Court, Panaji in Special Case No.56/2015 vide Judgment dtd. 13/12/2016. The learned Children's Court found the Appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 375(b), punishable under Sec. 376(2)(i) of IPC, under Sec. 2(y)(i), punishable under Sec. 8(2) of Goa Children's Act, 2003 and under Ss. 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 506(ii) of IPC. The Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of 2, 00, 000/- ? and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(i) of IPC, under Sec. 8(2) of Goa Children's Act, 2003 and under Sec. 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. Appellant was given set off for the period already undergone in judicial custody from the date of his arrest till the date of passing of the Judgment as provided under Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C.

2. This matter was admitted on 16/3/2021. The records and proceedings were called and the hearing was expedited as the Appellant is in custody from the date of his arrest i.e. from 6/3/2015.

3. Heard learned Counsel Mr Anoop A. Gaoker appearing under the Legal Aid Scheme for the Appellant and Mr Pravin Faldessai, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. With the assistance of both the learned Counsels, I have perused the paper book.

5. Mr Gaoker appearing for the Appellant/Accused submitted that though ten witnesses were examined by the Prosecution, relevant witnesses are PW1, PW2, PW3, PW6, PW7 and PW9. He submits that PW1/father of the victim lodged the complaint though belatedly but only on the information given to him by the victim and her sister. PW2/victim improvised in such a way that her testimony becomes highly improbable. Ocular evidence is not supported by medical evidence. PW3/sister of the victim again improvised in such a manner that her testimony smacks of vindictiveness. Both these witnesses were exposed during cross examination. PW6 the doctor, clearly opined that there was no injury and therefore, there was no question of blood coming out. The victim was examined after a period of three days from the date of alleged incident. PW7 being the grandmother, gives contrary version and her testimony is only on hearsay basis. However, she improvised by saying that she handed over the clothes with bloodstains to the police which was denied by the Investigating Officer. Finally, the Investigating Officer was crossexamined to show that no such incident ever took place. Mr Gaoker would therefore submit that the entire story was cooked up only to take revenge as there was some enmity between the Complainant and the Accused.

6. Mr Gaoker placed reliance on the following decisions:-

i. Balai Natta vs. State of Tripura, (2010) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 744,

ii. Dola Alias Dologobinda Pradhan and Anr. vs. State of Odisha, (2018) 18 SCC 695.

iii. Hari Om Alias Hero vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 4 SCC 345.

iv. Santosh Prasad Alias Santosh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443. and

v. Ajeet Singh Constable vs. State of U.P. And Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 4.

7. According to Mr Gaoker, the entire evidence on record would show that victim is totally unreliable and that her testimony is not supported by any cogent and convincing material. The findings of the learned Trial Court, according to Mr Gaoker are therefore perverse. The version of the victim and her sister ought not to have been accepted as gospel truth. The said victim and her father are having habit of making false allegations against the Accused and other persons.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr Faldessai though tried to justify the conviction, would submit that the ocular evidence is not supported by medical evidence. He also admits that there are contradictions in the form of improvements which go