In cases of sexual offences against minors, the victim's testimony must be consistent and credible; inconsistencies can challenge the conviction, whereas corroborative evidence is often unnecessary if the testimony is trustworthy.

JUDGMENT :

R.M. JOSHI, J.

1. This Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 2^nd February 2023 passed in POCSO Special Case No.99 of 2017 whereby the Appellant/Accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2)(n), 323, 509, 506(II) and sentenced to suffer 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default simple imprisonment for 10 and 2 days each.

2. The facts which led to the filing of the present Appeal can be narrated in brief as under:-

The prosecution case proceeds on the basis of First Information Report (‘FIR’ for short) lodged by the Informant, who is a relative of the victim. It is stated there in that the victim visited the house of the Informant on 16^th December 2016 making grievance in respect of she being beaten by her father (Accused). On 19^th December 2016 she again came back to the house of the Informant making further grievance that she was sexually abused by her father for last two years. On the basis of the said information crime was registered with D.N. Nagar Police Station. The said crime was investigated into. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of the victim so also her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. The victim was sent for medical examination. Statements of the other witnesses were recorded and on conclusion of the Investigation charge-sheet came to be filed before the Court.

3. Charge was framed against the Accused at Exhibit- 18. He denied the charges. The prosecution examined in all nine witnesses to bring home guilt of the Accused which are as under:-

4. Incriminating evidence was put to the Accused. He examined his wife Raziya Mohammad (D.W-1) at Exhibit-64 as a defence witness. The learned Trial Court found the evidence led by the prosecution sufficient to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and convicted the Accused and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment as mentioned herein above.

5. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that, though it is a settled position of law that sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to convict the Accused without seeking any further corroboration, such testimony must inspire confidence of the Court. It is her submission that here in this case the evidence on record indicate that the victim had grievance against her father for beating her. She further drew attention of the Court to the evidence of the Informant as well as the FIR, which indicates that on 16^th December 2016 when the victim came to the house of Informant, she made grievance about was being beaten by her father. On 19^th December 2016 she came back to the Informant and told her about she being sexually abused for last two years. It is her submission that from the cross-examination of the victim it is clear that the victim was not staying for last two years along with her father and as she was staying with her grandmother at her native place. It is contended that unless the testimony of the victim is unimpeachable, it would be unsafe to based conviction upon the same. Attention of the Court is also drawn to the history given to the Medical Officer which is inconsistent to the FIR. Finally it is argued that the medical evidence also does not prove the guilt of the Accused as medical officer has admitted that rupture of hymen is possible for many different reasons other than the sexual intercourse. She placed reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State (GNCT of Delhi ) V/s. Vipin @ Lalla, Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2025 dated 7^th January 2025 and Rai Sandeep V/s. State (NCT of Delhi with Hari Singh V/s. State (NCT of Delhi),