The testimony of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and does not necessarily require corroboration.

JUDGMENT

Birendra Kumar, J. - The sole appellant Sipahi Sah faced trial before the learned Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, at Bettiah the District Headquarter of West Champaran, in connection with Bairiya P.S. Case No.185 of 2015 corresponding to S.G.R. No.62 of 2015 for offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

2. By the impugned judgment dated 17.08.2017 the learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty under each of the aforesaid heads and by order dated 21.08.2017 sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) for each of the aforesaid offences and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine three months simple imprisonment was ordered for each of the aforesaid offence. The fine amount was directed to be paid to the victim.

3. The prosecution case as disclosed in the fardbeyan of the victim girl, aged about ten years, recorded at her house on 07.07.2019 at 11:15 AM by Sub-Inspector, Sanjay Kumar, in presence of her mother, is that on the same day i.e., 07.07.2015 at about 7:00 AM the victim had gone to answer the call of nature near the Tower by the side of cold storage. The appellant, aged about 45 years, came and caught her and thrashed her on the ground, opened her lower garments and ravished her and thereafter fled away. The informant came to her house and narrated the incident to her mother. The mother of the victim along with victim went to the house of the appellant. The wife of the appellant started weeping and bowed down on the feet of her mother praying for excuse. In the meantime, the police came and the fardbeyan was recorded. Fardbeyan is available on the record as Exhibit-3. It is worth to be noted here that PW 7 the Investigating Officer in para-21 of his deposition stated that the Officer-in-Charge of the police station heard rumour that in village Santghat a female child has been ravished. Then the police reached the village and recorded the fardbeyan of the victim.

4. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the appellant. Before examining the evidence on the record it would be apt to note the contention of learned counsel for the parties for and against the impugned judgment.

5. Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the impugned judgment and sentences are not sustainable in law for the serious infirmities in the prosecution case. Learned counsel would submit that the victim appears to be a tutored witness as her statement does not find corroboration from the medical evidence inasmuch as the doctor did not find any recent sign of rape as on physical observation there was no injury on the private parts or any other parts of the body of the victim nor the pathological examination revealed any spermatozoa on examination of the vaginal swab. Learned counsel contends that medical examination was done on the date of occurrence itself which would be evident from the medical report at Exhibit-2 as well as evidence of the doctor i.e., PW 6. Learned counsel next contended that there is material contradiction in between the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. vide Exhibit-A and her statement as PW 1 and the learned trial Judge has ignored both the aforesaid infirmities in the prosecution evidence.

6. To contra, Mr. Sujeet Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, contends that the occurrence took place on 07.07.2015 at 7:00 AM. The fardbeyan was recorded on the same day at 11:15 AM and the statement of the victim was recorded before the Magistrate on 09.07.2015. The victim was medically examined on the date of occurrence itself at 2:00 PM. The victim is all along consistent on the allegation against the appellant. Learned counsel contends that the law is well settled that a victim of rape need not