The victim's testimony, if found reliable, can be the basis for conviction in sexual assault cases, and the court cannot reduce the sentence below the minimum prescribed by law.

JUDGMENT

BHARAT P.DESHPANDE,J. - Since both these appeals are arising out of the Judgment passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 38/2016 dtd. 1/9/2020/14/9/2020, they are taken up together.

2. CRIA 29/2021 is filed by the State through Police Inspector, Old Goa Police Station, thereby challenging only the portion of awarding sentence below the prescribed minimum provided under the Act.

3. The Accused filed CRIA 4/2022, thereby challenging his conviction under Sec. 376 of IPC and Sec. 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), amongst the grounds raised in the memo of appeal.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel Shri Rohan Desai appearing for the Accused, and Shri Pravin Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, in both the appeals at length.

5. Initially, the Accused was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Ss. 363, 376 of IPC, Sec. 8(2) of Goa Children's Act 2003, Ss. 4 and 8 of POCSO Act 2012 on the allegations that on 7/4/2012, the Accused kidnapped a minor daughter of the Complainant from lawful guardianship and took her away to an unknown destination. The accused then sexually assaulted the victim on three occasions, due to which she became pregnant.

6. Charge-sheet was filed before the Children's Court for State of Goa in view of the application under Sec. 8(2) of Goa Children's Act. It was registered as Special Case No. 139/2015. Vide order dtd. 8/6/2016, the President of Children's Court discharged the Accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 363 of IPC and Sec. 8(2) of Goa Children's Act 2003 on the premise that on the day when alleged kidnapping took place, victim was above 16 years old. Similarly, it was observed that the victim went along with the Accused voluntarily. However, since the learned President of Children's Court observed that prima facie offence under Sec. 376 of IPC and Ss. 4 and 8 of POCSO Act are made out, transferred the said matter to the Sessions Court at Panaji to be tried by the competent jurisdictional Court.

7. Accordingly, the matter was allotted to Additional Sessions Judge, North Goa, Mapusa, who vide order below Exhibit 5 dtd. 4/1/2017, framed the charge against Accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 of IPC and Ss. 4 and 8 of POCSO Act on the allegations that the Accused on 14/1/2014 in a room at Parra had sexual intercourse with the victim who, at the relevant time was 17 years and 3 months old and thereafter took her on two more occasions to the same place at Parra and had sexual intercourse with her resulting in the victim becoming pregnant.

8. Prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses to prove the charge levelled against the Accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, after considering entire material on record, observed/held that Prosecution succeeded in proving the charge levelled against the Accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 of IPC and Sec. 4 of POCSO Act. Accordingly, Accused was found guilty for the said charge. However, after hearing the Accused on point of sentence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge inflicted punishment on the Accused to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.15,000.00 and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

9. The State through Police Inspector, Old Goa Police Station, challenged the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court which is below the bare minimum provided under Sec. 376 of IPC and Sec. 4 of POCSO Act.

10. The Accused challenged his conviction and sentence on the grounds as mentioned in the memo of appeal.

11. Shri Rohan Desai, the learned Counsel appearing for the Accused strongly contended that first of all, Prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the Accused committed such offence, beyond all reasonable doubt. The victim though deposed before the Court, her statement is not inspiring confidence so as to convict the Accused solely o