IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the testimony of a child victim, supported by medical evidence, is sufficient for conviction under the POCSO Act, even in the presence of a negative DNA report regarding paternity.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

SURENDRA PANDHARINATH TAVADE, J. - Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 14-01-2020, passed by the Special Judge as per Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur in Special (POCSO) Case No. 06 of 2018, whereby the the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the 'POCSO Act ') and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment, the appellant was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act no separate sentence was awarded to the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC ') and offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, can be summarized as under:-

"a. The informant is the mother of victim who lodged the FIR on 23-06-2018. It is alleged in the FIR that the informant is blind. She resides alongwith her husband, son and victim who is deaf and dumb. She is having son Dhondiba who is also blind. On the day of lodging the FIR, the victim was aged about 16 years. She studied up to 7th std. in the deaf and dumb school. On 10-06-2018, the informant alongwith her brother-in-law Dashrath (appellant) and relatives performed the marriage of victim with one Maroti Bandewad resident of Vijay Nagar, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. After the marriage, the victim went to her matrimonial house. About two days after the marriage, the victim suffered stomach ache. The husband of victim felt that the victim was carrying pregnancy, he brought the victim to the house of the informant. On enquiry by the informant, the victim disclosed that the appellant committed rape on her in the month of February, 2018 and she also disclosed that the appellant threatened her not to disclose the incident to anybody. Hence, she did not disclose the said incident to anybody including the informant. On the basis of said information the informant went to Ahmedpur Police Station and lodged the report against the appellant.

b. The victim was referred to medical examination where she was examined by Dr. Manisha Pole (PW-2). On medical examination Dr. Manisha Pole (PW-2) came to a conclusion that the victim was carrying pregnancy of 24-26 weeks. Hence, the victim was referred for sonography. Accordingly, Dr. Pranita Somani (PW5) carried out obstetric ultra sound examination of uterus. On the basis of medical examination, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses. The appellant came to be arrested. He was referred to medical examination. Dr. Mahesh Pawar (PW-6) examined the appellant and held that the appellant was potent and is able to perform the sexual intercourse. The Investigating Officer also visited the scene of offence and prepared the panchanama. During the pendency of the investigation the victim delivered a female child on 02-10-2018. Hence, DNA sample of victim was collected. Similarly, the blood sample of accused was also collected and sent it to DNA examination. Forensic Lab, Aurangabad opined that the victim is biological mother of female child born to her. But the accused is excluded to be biological father of the said child born to victim. After the conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the present appellant. On appearance of the appellant, the charge came to be framed against the appellant at Exh.10. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is of total denial. According to him, due to land dispute with the informant, he was falsely implicated. To prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has relied on the evidence as many as eight witnesses. The appe