IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in cases of sexual assault, the victim's testimony can be sufficient for conviction, and that slight penetration constitutes an offense under the POCSO Act, regardless of the presence of physical injuries.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This is an appeal under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dtd. 22/02/2019 in Special Case No.2 of 2017, Ratnagiri.

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Special Judge (POCSO) has held the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') guilty of offences punishable under Ss. 376(2)(i)(j), 354, 504 and 506 of IPC and under Ss. 3 r/w 4 and 7 r/w 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('the POCSO Act'). The accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.25, 000.00 i/d. to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act. He is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for offences punishable under Ss. 504 and 506 of the IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20/11/2016 at about 5.00 p.m. the victim, a child of about 12 years of age had gone to the house of the accused to give him an invitation card. It is alleged that that the accused sexually assaulted her and subjected her to penetrative sexual assault. The accused is also alleged to have threatened the victim not to disclose the incident to anyone. The victim narrated the incident to her mother PW7 and sister-(PW2). She questioned the accused about the incident but the accused denied having committed any offence. He further abused and threatened them. PW7 called her husband, who was in Mumbai and told him about the incident. After he returned home, the victim lodged the FIR against the accused. Pursuant to which crime was registered against the accused for offences punishable under Ss. 376(ii), 504, 506 of IPC and Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act. PW10-PSI Anjana Phalake investigated the crime. She recorded the statements of the victim, referred the victim for medical examination, conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized all the incriminating material including the clothes of the victim. She recorded the statements of the witnesses and upon completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused.

4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. Defence of the accused was of total denial and of false implication.

5. The learned Judge after evaluating the evidence adduced by the prosecution held that the victim was a child within the meaning of Sec. 2(d) of the POCSO Act. Relying upon the testimony of the victim, the learned Judge held the accused guilty of the offences and sentenced him as stated above. Being aggrieved by the judgment the accused has filed this appeal.

6. Mr. Pramod Kathane, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the evidence of the victim is not reliable and hence conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of the victim. He further states that the evidence of the victim is not corroborated by medical evidence. He submits that the victim is not reliable and hence conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of the victim. He states that there is delay in lodging the complaint. He further states that though the victim has alleged that the accused had subjected her to penetrative sexual assault, evidence of PW8-Dr. Ramchandra Mestri clearly indicates that there were no injuries on her private parts and that hymen was intact. He therefore contends that medical evidence rules out possibility of penetrative sexual assault. Learned counsel for the accused submits that the CA report also does not support the case of the prosecution.

7. Mr. S.V. Gavand, learned APP states that the victim was a child of 12 years of age. Her evidence clearly indicates that the accused had sexually abused her. He submits that partial penetration of the penis is sufficient to constitute the offence under Sec. 3 of the POCSO Act. He submits that absence of injuries is no ground to disbeli