The prosecution must provide credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt in sexual assault cases; inconsistencies in witness testimony and absence of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 376(3) and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , Section 4 (2) of the POCSO Act, 2012 vide judgment dated 23.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Vaishali at Hajipur in POCSO Gr. No. 12 of 2020, arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 11 of 2020. By order dated 13.10.2022, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for twenty years, to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer R.I. for six months under Section 376(3) of the IPC; R.I. for twenty years, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer R.I. for four months under Section 4 (2) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and S.I. for one year under Section 506 of the IPC.

3. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

4. The victim, a 13 year old girl, is said to have been raped by the appellant, who is her step-brother.

5. The case was lodged by the mother of the victim (P.W. 1), who had lodged a written report on 22.03.2020 alleging that on 20.03.2020, at about 4 o’clock in the morning, her 13 year old daughter had come out of her room to go to the toilet. That time, the appellant, who is her step-cousin, gagged her and took her near the bathroom of one Vikash Thakur, another family member, and raped her. Later, the victim was brought back home by the appellant. He had threatened the victim of dire consequences, in case she narrated about the occurrence to anyone else. The victim did not say anything out of fear but appeared very distraught to her mother. When she further asked her daughter, she narrated about the occurrence. The appellant was accosted by P.W. 1 when, in the first instance, he denied to have committed any such offence and later threatened that he would not care less even if the case was reported.

6. On the basis of the afore-noted written report, Hajipur Mahila P.S. Case No. 11 of 2020, dated 22.03.2020 was registered for investigation under Sections 504 , 506, 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

7. The informant/mother of the victim has though supported the prosecution case at the Trial, but her deposition does not inspire confidence. She has narrated the same story before the Trial Court but with some difference.

8. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated that the victim was crying after the incident. When she asked her about the reason for her not taking food for the whole day, the victim relented and on the next day, spoke about the occurrence. While this event had happened, her husband (father of the victim) was away on duty.

9. Early in the morning, P.W. 1 went to ask the mother and brother of the appellant when it was denied and a threatening also was given. Thereafter, P.W. 1 claims to have come to Chandpura O.P. The police personnel at Chandpura O.P. had arrested the appellant and had also facilitated the victim and her husband to reach the Mahila Police Station. The Offier-in-Charge of Mahila Police Station was told about the occurrence, which was reduced in writing and signed by her, her husband and the victim (Ext.- 1).

10. Thereafter, the victim w