Point of Law: Section 157 of Evidence Act makes it clear that a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC can be relied upon for purpose of corroborating statements made by witnesses in committal court or even to contradict same.

JUDGMENT :

[Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.]

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) has been preferred by the appellant against impugned judgment dated 23/12/2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), South Bastar, Distt. Dantewada in Special Sessions Case No. 12/2021 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Prosecution story :-

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant herein, on the pretext of marriage, committed sexual intercourse with the victim, aged less than 16 years, on 02/08/2020 at about 11 AM and on 15/08/2020 at his mother's house in Forest Colony Deepopara within the ambit of Police Station Bijapur on account of which she got pregnant and he thereby, committed the aforesaid offences.

3. Further case of the prosecution is that a memo was received at the Bijapur Police Station vide Ex. P/22 from the District Hospital, Bijapur pursuant to which the Gopal Singh Thakur (P.W.-9), A.S.I, Police Station Bijapur went to the Hospital wherein upon enquiry, mother of the victim (P.W.- 2) informed him that on 28/12/2020, she brought her daughter (victim) to the Hospital wherein after medical examination, the Doctor confirmed that the victim was pregnant and she was informed by the victim that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her twice, on 02/08/2020 and 15/05/2020 on the pretext of marriage. On the complaint of victim's mother (P.W.-2), dehati nalishi was registered vide Ex. P/2 and thereafter, first information report was registered against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act vide Ex. P/23. During investigation, nazri naksha was prepared vide Ex. P/4 and patwai naksha was prepared vide Ex. P/13 and thereafter, panchnama was prepared vide Ex. P/14. With regard to the date of birth of the victim, Dakhil Khariz Register (Ex. P/11C) was seized vide Ex. P/9. After obtaining consent from the victim as well as her mother vide Ex. P/3 and P/5, medical examination of the victim was conducted vide Ex. P/1 and certain articles were seized from her vide Ex. P/25 which were sent for FSL and as per the FSL report (Ex. P/28), no incriminating evidence was found against the appellant. Thereafter, statement of the victim under Section 164 of CrPC was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijapur vide Ex. P/6 in which she has clearly implicated the appellant. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of CrPC and after due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Section 376(3) of the IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii) and 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act which was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence.

4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined 9 witnesses and brought on record 28 documents. The statement of the appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined none in his defence.

5. Learned Special Judge, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as aforesaid on the basis of the statements of victim's father (P.W.-8) and mother (P.W.-2) and Dr. Monika (P.W.-1) as well as on the basis of the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC vide Ex. P/6.

Submission of the parties :-

6. Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, would submit that learned Special Judge is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences in absence of legally admissible evidence as the victim's mother (P.W.-2) has not supported the case of the prosecution at all and only on the basis of the medical evidence of Dr. Monika (P.W.-1), conviction of the appell