IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the presumption of guilt in sexual offences against minors under the POCSO Act, emphasizing the importance of corroborated testimony and medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Revati Mohite Dere, J.

1 By this appeal, the appellant has impugned the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29th March 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, Thane in Session Case No. 33/2013 as under :

for the offence punishable under Section 376(f) of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’), to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years;

for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (‘POCSO Act’), to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months;

for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months;

All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The appellant, in addition to the fine amount, was directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the survivers A, B, C and E.

The appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to surviver D.

On deposit, the compensation amount was directed to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank in the joint names of survivers and their respective mothers and on attaining the age of majority, the amount along with interest was directed to be paid to the survivers.

Since, it is a POCSO case, the identity of the victim girls is concealed.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as under:

The appellant and the complainant (PW7) are close relatives, inasmuch as, PW7 is the wife of the brother-in-law of the appellant. It is the prosecution case that the appellant sexually assaulted five girls. All the victim girls were between the age group 8 years to 13 years and living in the same village as the appellant. The said incident of sexual assault by the appellant on the victim girls went on for about 2 years. It is only when PW6 saw the appellant sexually assaulting one of the victim girls, the complainant (PW7) was informed of the same, pursuant to which, PW7 lodged an FIR against the appellant alleging offences punishable under Sections 376(f), 354, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The victim girls were sent for medical examination and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the said case in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasai. Since the offences were triable by the Court of Sessions, the case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions, for trial.

The trial Court framed charge against the appellant, to which, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution in support of its case, examined 12 witnesses i.e the victim girls PW1 (Survivor A); PW2 (Survivor B); PW3 (Survivor C); PW4 (Survivor D); PW5 (Survivor E); PW7, the complainant (mother of one of the survivor-PW2); PW6, (eye- witness), who witnessed sexual assault by the appellant on one of the victim girls; two medical officers i.e. PW8-Dr. Sheela Chakre and PW 10-Dr. Ravindra Deokar; PW9-Nancy Pareira, panch to the spot panchnama; PW11-Amol Ghag (photographer) and PW 12-Mrs. Muthe (the Investigating Officer).

Thereafter, the 313 statement of the appellant was recorded. His defence was of denial and false implication. The appellant did not examine any witness in support of his case.

The learned Judge, after hearing the parties, was pleased to convict the appellant as stated aforesaid, in paragraph 1.

3. At the outset, we may note that as soon as the appeal was called out for hearing, Advocate Mr. Aniket Vagal stated that he has given his no objection to the appellant and as such stated that he has no instructions to appear in the aforesaid appeal. Hence, we appointed Ms. Laxmi Raman, who is on the Legal Aid Panel to espouse the cause of the appellant. We also appointed Mr. A. R. Kapadnis as amicus curiae to