The court affirmed that the victim's testimony, supported by medical and DNA evidence, is sufficient for conviction in sexual assault cases, emphasizing the importance of her age and the nature of the crime.

JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

1. By this appeal, the appellant, who is original accused No.1, (the accused) has challenged judgment and order dated 24.8.2023 passed by learned Extra Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur (learned Judge of the trial court) in Special (POCSO)

Case No.94/2017.

2. By the said judgment impugned, the accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the POCSO Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay fine Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

He is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine Rs.3000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

He is further convicted for offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.

He is further convicted for offence punishable under Section 344 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.

He is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 506(2) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 days.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

The victim girl aged about 16 years was residing at Ganga Nagar, near Ansari Kirana Shop, Nagpur in 2017 along with her parents and was studying n 10th Std. at Friends Convent and Highschoool, Nagpur and used to attend the tuition class at Virchakra Colony. On 30.1.2017, she left the house to attend the tuition class, but did not return back till 8:30 pm. Therefore, her father, who is informant, searched her by visiting her tuition class to make enquiry and he was informed that she has not attended tuition class on that date. On due search, she was not found and, therefore, he lodged missing report vide Exh.60 at Gittikhadan Police Station

4. After registration of the crime, the investigating officer visited the tuition class of the victim girl and drawn spot panchanama. During search, she was found on 3.3.2017 at Hudkeshwar at plot No.71 along with the accused. They both were brought at the Gittikhadan Police Station. On enquiring with the victim, she informed that when she was proceeding to attend her tuition class, co-accused Mohd.Arif and his wife Aaliya took her to Kamptee at parents house of Aaliya and, thereafter, they took her at Sai Mandir, Kanhan. She met the present accused at the parents house of Aaliya. They all took her at Ajmer. Though she resisted to join them to proceed to Ajmer, they threatened her and forcefully took her at Ajmer. On 2.2.2017, co-accused Bhima received a phone call of his father and he came to know that police are searching them. Thereafter, the co-accused obtained a room on rent at Ajmer and they all resided there for 5 to 6 days. Thereafter, the victim girl was brought at Nagpur and the accused started residing with the victim girl in rented premises and subjected her for forceful sexual assault against her consent. After recording her statement, she was referred for medical examination. The provisions of the POCSO Act were added as well as offences were also registered under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 read with 34 of the IPC. The accused was arrested. During investigation, the medical reports of the victim girl and the accused were collected. Their samples and clothes were seized and forwarded to the Chemical Analyzer. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was submitted against the accused.

5. Learned Judge of the trial court framed the charge against the accused vide Exh.54. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution ha