IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on corroborative evidence, including medical reports and witness testimony, to establish the commission of sexual offences. Additionally, the court emphasized the statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act, which influenced the decision.

JUDGMENT :

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.

This appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against the judgment of conviction dated 11.01.2021 and the order of sentence dated 13.01.2021 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO)-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge-6th, Bhagalpur, in G.R. No.1445/2018(C) arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 19/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. We are not disclosing the name of the victim and her mother so as to conceal her identity. The victim’s mother (PW 2) is the informant of Bhagalpur Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2018, registered for the offences 376 D/376 (2)(i) and Section 4/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. A written report dated 02.04.2018 is the basis for registration of the said FIR. She alleged in her written report that on the previous day at about 3:00 to 4:00 P.M., the victim was sleeping and her daughter, while attempting to awake her for giving her food, noticed presence of blood on the victim’s clothes. On enquiry, she disclosed that the appellant, co-accused Pritam Yadav and Swastik Yadav had taken her to a maize filed and committed rape upon her.

3. The police, upon completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and two other persons, namely, Pritam Yadav and Swastik Yadav for commission of offences punishable under Sections 376D/376(2)(i) of the IPC and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act. It transpires form the records that two co-accused persons, namely, Pritam Yadav and Swastik Yadav were found to be minor on an enquiry made by the Juvenile Justice Board. The appellant had also claimed to be a minor. The Juvenile Justice Board, Bhagalpur, however, found that the appellant was major above 18 years as on the date of occurrence. Accordingly, charge was framed against this appellant only by the learned Special Court on 07.05.2019 for the offence punishable under Section 376D of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

4. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined five witnesses, namely, the victim (PW 1), the victim’s mother (PW 2), the Doctor, who had examined the victim (PW 3), the Investigation Officer (PW 4) and one Dilip Yadav (PW 5). The Doctor (PW 3) proved following injury on the person of the victim: -

“(i) There is linear abrasion on right hand left side which is approx 3 and 1/2 inch long. On private parts examination there is vaginal tear with bleeding.”

5. Based on radiological examination, the victim’s age was found to be between 8 to 10 years. Let it be noted, at this juncture, that there is no much controversy as regards the age of the victim being less than 12 years as on the date of occurrence.

6. The victim (PW 1) deposed at the trial that she was allured by the appellant of giving her corn (Bhutta) and money, by the appellant, who had taken her to a maize field. Subsequently, co-accused Pritam and Swastik also came, whereafter both of them did something dirty (ganda kaam) with her. She had disclosed the occurrence to her mother. It is worthwhile mentioning that her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. Her signature on the statement made under Section 164 of the CrPC came to be marked as Exhibit-1 at the trial and her signature on the written application as Exhibit-2. The victim’s mother (PW 2) supported the prosecution’s case. PW 4, the Investigating Officer, deposed inter alia at the trial that the maize plants in the middle of the maize field, where the occurrence was alleged to have taken place, were found trampled.

7. Apart from the oral evidence of the