The court established that credible witness testimony is essential in sexual assault cases, particularly involving minors, and modified the sentence based on the nature of the crime and the age of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this appeal, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the learned Extra Joint, Addition Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Wardha (for short ‘the learned Judge’), whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Section 6 read with Section 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’) and Sections 376(2)(j) and 376-AB read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six (6) months for the offence punishable under Section 6 read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act. No separate punishment is awarded for the offences punishable under sections 376(2)(j) and 376-AB read with Section 511 of the IPC.

2. Background facts

The informant, in this case, is the mother of the victim girl. The victim girl on the date of the incident was 7 years and 5 months old. The case of the prosecution, which can be unfolded from the report and other materials, is that the victim girl is deaf and dumb. The incident in question occurred on 13.11.2019. On 13.11.2019, at about 11:00 a.m., the informant went to the agricultural field. Her mother-in-law and the victim were at home. While leaving the house, she told her mother-in-law to drop the victim at the house of her sister- in-law (PW-4) before going to the field. It is stated that while going to the field, the mother-in-law of the informant dropped the victim at the house of PW-4 and gave Rs.2/- to the victim for purchasing chocolate etc.

3. The appellant is a neighbor of PW-4. He is running a pan stall near the house of PW-4. PW-4 and the appellant are relatives. It is stated that the victim went to the shop of the appellant for purchasing the chocolate. The victim did not return for some time. PW-4, therefore, went to see her near the shop. When she went to the shop, she saw that the victim was lying on the cot while her frock was removed and her legging was stripped off up to her knees. The appellant was lying on her person and taking kisses of her breast and abdomen. On seeing PW-4, the appellant was scared. PW-4 got the victim down from the cot and put on her clothes and brought her home. The mother of the victim was not at home.

4. The informant, the mother of the victim, returned from the field at 2:30 p.m. After seeing the mother of the victim, PW-4 started crying. She narrated the incident to the mother of the victim. The husband of PW-2 informant and his brother were not at home. They returned from the agricultural field at about 6:00 p.m. PW-4 and PW-2 narrated the incident to them. PW-4, her husband and her relatives went to the house of the appellant and questioned him about the act committed by him with the victim. The appellant quarreled with them. Thereafter, they went to Karanja (Ghadge) Police Station. PW-2, the mother of the victim, lodged the report against the appellant.

5. On the basis of the report, crime bearing No. 336 of 2019 was registered against the appellant/accused. PW-8 Kavita Fuse, API, carried out the investigation. PW-8 referred the victim for medical examination. The appellant was arrested. The investigating officer recorded the statement of the witnesses. The investigating officer drew the spot panchanama and seized the clothes of the victim and the clothes of the accused. The samples had been collected and seized. The samples were sent to RFSL, Nagpur for examination. The statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’). After completion of the investigation, PW-8 filed the charge-sheet against the appellant.

6. The learned Judge framed the charge against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty. His defence is of a false implication on account of his inimical relations with PW- 4 and the f