The court upheld the conviction for rape under IPC and POCSO Act, emphasizing the credibility of the victim's testimony and the need for sensitivity in child sexual assault cases.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

We have heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, the learned APP for the State.

2. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 vide judgment dated 01.08.2019. By order dated 06.08.2019, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer SI for one year under Section 376 of the IPC; RI for 20 years each, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-each and in default of payment of fine to further suffer SI for six months each under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

3. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

4. The victim, an eight year old girl, is said to have been raped by the appellant on 30.03.2017 while she had gone to his house for watching television programmes. The FIR has been lodged by the victim herself on 31.03.2017 which was recorded at Sadar Hospital, Madhubani by the SI of police, viz., Kanchan Kumari, who at the relevant time was posted in the Women Police Station, Madhubani. She has alleged in her fardbeyan that when she had visited the house of the appellant in the evening of 30.03.2017 to watch television, other children of the neighbourhood were also present there. It was then alleged by her that thereafter appellant called her to his room and committed rape on her. When she started bleeding from her private parts, she started shouting. Her friends started banging at the door. Appellant then opened the door and she came out and proceeded for her home. She met her mother (PW- 3) on the way. She has also alleged to have become unconscious on the road and when she recovered her consciousness, she found herself in the hospital.

5. On the basis of the aforenoted fardbeyan of the victim, Laukahi P.S. Case No. 53 of 2017 dated 31.03.2017 was registered for investigation under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

6. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant whereupon he was put on Trial.

7. The Trial Court, after examining eight witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and three on behalf of the defence, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

8. The primary contention of the appellant is that he stands in the relation of grandfather to the victim and he has been framed in this false case only because of some dispute having erupted out of a property conveyed by the appellant to the uncles of the victim. In that parcel of land, which was sold by the appellant, there were cluster of bamboo trees which the appellant wanted to cut and take it away but was not allowed to do so by the vendees.

9. The other contention of the appellant is that he has wrongly been stated to be a person of 45 years at the time of the occurrence. The fact of the matter is that even the Trial Court has assessed his age to be 65 years.

10. That apart, it has been argued that though the Medical Board which had examined the victim, found only laceration on her private parts, however, the Trial Court appears to have been swayed by the fact that the wearing apparel of the appellant, on forensic examination, displayed semen signs. Without contesting the correctness of the forensic report, Mr. Sharma has drawn the attention of this Court to the lack of any material to read that forensic report co-referentially with the wearing apparel, which apparently was seized by the police. In that context, he has also drawn the attention of this Court to the deposition of the investigator who claims to have been given that wearing apparel of the appellant to him by one Sundar Devi, whose relationship with the appellant has not been disclosed anywhere in the records of this case.

11. He has further argued that the evidence clearly suggests that the appellant was arrested, not from his home but on the next day of the occurrence and, therefo