IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that in cases involving minors, the credibility of the victim's testimony holds significant weight, and corroboration may not always be necessary. The court also emphasized the strict liability of the accused in cases of sexual assault against minors.

JUDGMENT :

1. Convict for offence under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, is hereby assailing the judgment and order dated 13-09-2022 passed by the Special Judge under POCSO Act, Ahmednagar in Special Case No.109 of 2019.

CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF

2. PW1 Victim studied in 11th standard in Shri Sant Nilobaray Mahavidyalaya at Ralegansiddhi. In marriage of one Yogesh Jadhav, victim got acquainted with accused. Thereafter, there were talks of marriage but as victim had not completed 18 years of age and was pursuing education, marriage proposal was not accepted. However, accused started meeting victim inspite of her refusal. Accused threatened her and forcibly took her in a hotel and against her wish and without her consent, he had sexual intercourse with her several times. Subsequently, her pregnancy was revealed and therefore, on 17-02-2019, she consumed insecticide and was required to be hospitalized. While taking treatment, her statement was recorded and crime was registered which was finally investigated by PW14 Sone (API), who on completion of investigation, chargesheeted accused and was further tried by the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Ahmednagar, who on appreciating oral and documentary evidence, recorded guilt for above Sections and the same is now challenged by way of instant appeal.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of appellant :

3. Putting up a defence of false implication, learned Counsel for appellant would submit that except sole testimony of victim, there is no cogent, reliable, independent evidence. He alleges false implication to cover up the alleged suicidal attempt by victim. According to him, contents of the report and testimony of the victim are inconsistent. He also questions the age of the victim on the ground that there is no conclusive evidence about her age. That though PW15 Navnath Katke and P16 Dilip Deshmukh are examined, there is doubt whether victim was a minor as name of the victim is missing from the birth certificate. According to him, birth certificate shows date of birth of prosecutrix as 16-09-2002, however, in school leaving certificate, different date is reflected i.e. 17-09-2002 and therefore, being difference in both, he prays to discard the evidence adduced by the prosecution on the point of age.

He criticizes the impugned judgment by submitting that even learned trial Court has failed to appreciate evidence in such a serious case in its proper perspective and has not considered settled law. He also accuses investigating machinery for improper investigation alleging several lapses and deliberate implication.

Defence put up is that there is false implication as prosecutrix was found to have advance pregnancy and its termination was not possible and merely to save reputation and face, allegations of rape are levelled. He further argues that evidence of entire prosecution witnesses is full of material omissions, contradictions and the same ought not to have been accepted by the trial Court.

He also questioned the DNA evidence by submitting that there is no link evidence, even there is no proper procedure adopted for collection of samples and therefore, its analysis, according to him, cannot be taken recourse to, or relied by the prosecution.

Lastly, he submitted that prosecution having failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as is expected from them, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment by allowing the appeal.

On behalf of State :

4. While answering the above arguments, learned APP would submit that victim is below 18 years of age and there is full-proof and conclusive evidence adduced by prosecution in the trial Court. According to him, victim herself deposed about she being threatened and taken to hotel several times and against her wish accused had sexual intercourse with her and even impregnated her. Therefore, incidents being against her wish, offence of rape is complete. He further p