The absence of medical evidence does not negate the credibility of a victim's testimony in sexual assault cases, and minor inconsistencies do not render it untrustworthy.

JUDGMENT :

(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)

1. We have heard Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh who has been assisted by Mr. Amit Ranjan, the learned advocates for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The sole appellant stands convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act vide judgment dated 15.09.2023 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Court (POCSO Act)-cum-VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in POCSO Case No. 123 of 2022. By order dated 23.03.2023, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years, to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-for the offence under Section 4 (2) of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months. The amount of fine has been directed to be paid to the victim or to her parents. No separate sentence has been awarded under Section 376 of the IPC in the light of the provision of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The Trial Court has also directed for payment of compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-to the victim by the State from the victim compensation fund or other scheme of fund established for rehabilitating her.

3. The victim, a fourteen years old girl, is said to have been raped by the appellant on 07.07.2022. Incidentally, the appellant is stated to be the tutor of the victim.

4. In the present case, along with the appellant, his parents were also charge-sheeted and put up on trial but the Trial Court acquitted them of all charges because of there being no evidence against them. The FIR was lodged by Md. Margub Alam (PW-3), who is the father of the victim. He has alleged that on 07.07.2022, he had gone to Sanhaula Madarsa for teaching pupils at about 7 ‘o’clock in the morning. His wife (PW-2) who is an Anganwari Sevika had also gone to her centre. After coming from the Anganwari Centre, his wife has gone to the fields for plucking lentils. At about 3 ‘o’clock in the day, his daughter/victim whose date of birth is 28.02.2008 and who is a student of standard-VIII also proceeded to the field to meet her mother. However, the appellant, a 24 years old person, whose house fell in the way, forcibly took her inside his house and gagged and raped her. His daughter was also threatened of dire consequences in case she narrated about the incident to her parents or filed any case. His daughter came to the field and told her mother about the occurrence. The wife of the informant communicated all this to him. On receiving such information from his wife, PW-3 went to the house of the appellant where he met the parents of the appellant who did not take any steps against their son; rather they admitted that the appellant had committed such offence only for creating a situation so that the victim is married to the appellant. A panchayati was convened but the appellant did not participate in the aforenoted panchayati.

5. Hence, the written report was lodged on 09.07.2022.

6. On the basis of the aforenoted written report by PW-3/father of the victim, a case vide Sanokhar (Amdanda P.S. Case No. 132 of 2022 dated 09.07.2022) was registered for investigation under Section 376, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

7. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellant and his parents whereupon all the three were put on trial.

8. The learned Trial Court after having examined seven witnesses on behalf of the prosecution; three on behalf of the defence and one as a Court witness, convicted the appellant as aforesaid.

9. However, the parents of the appellant were acquitted of all the charges.

10. We have examined the records of this case rather carefully. The victim has been examined as PW-1, who has supported the prosecution version in totality. According to her, the appellant had been threatening the family for having filed the case. At the time of the occurrence, the victim claimed to be twelve years of age. While she was going to meet