School records based on parental statements given primacy over ossification tests for proving minor victim's age in POCSO cases; sole credible testimony of prosecutrix sufficient for convicting father in position of trust of aggravated rape warranting remainder-of-life imprisonment.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH PITALE, J.

1. The appellant has been convicted of raping his own minor daughter. He is aggrieved by judgement and order dated 12.03.2020, passed by the Special Court for Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Greater Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court) in POCSO Case No. 485 of 2018. By the said judgement, the appellant has been convicted for offences under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and under sections 6 and 9(n) read with section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act). Upon his conviction, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, which is for the remainder of his natural life and he is also liable to pay fine of Rs. 1000 and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months.

2. The prosecution case is triggered by the statement given by the victim i.e. the daughter of the appellant. On 27.07.2018, she gave her statement to the police, which resulted in registration of FIR, wherein the appellant was named as the accused person. In her statement, she gave details of her place of residence and the fact that her family consisted of her parents, one elder sister and three brothers. It was also stated that the father i.e. the appellant herein, was doing mason work and that her mother was working as a maid servant. She stated that at the time of giving her statement, she was studying in 10^th standard at the Agripada Municipal Urdu Secondary School. It was further stated that since she was of the age of 10 years, her father i.e. the appellant (original accused) used to touch her inappropriately and when she made a grievance to her mother, it was ignored. She further stated that about 3 months prior to giving her said statement, the father had physically and sexually abused her. The details were given in the statement and it was further stated that such incidents had taken place at least on four occasions. It was further stated that the latest of such incidents had occurred on 21.07.2018. When a ‘Police Didi’ program was organised in her school, she gathered the courage to meet the counsellor and thereupon, with the assistance of the Principal of the School and the counsellor, she had now approached the police with her grievance.

3. Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant, the police arrested him and started the investigation. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statement of various witnesses. Eventually, charge-sheet was filed and the appellant was charged with the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, the medical examination of the victim was also undertaken and the papers pertaining to the medical examination also formed part of the charge-sheet.

4. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses in order to prove its case. PW1 was the victim herself. PW2 was the doctor, who had medically examined the victim upon registration of the FIR. PW3 was the Principal of the aforesaid school, in which the victim was studying when the FIR was registered. PW4 was the counsellor, who had conducted the aforesaid program in the victim’s school