The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of the prosecutrix, if found to be trustworthy and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if her evidence inspires confidence and is found to be credible.

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.03.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge FTSC (POCSO Act), Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No. 44/2021, by which the appellant has been convicted for offences punishable U/s 506 of IPC and U/s 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of 5 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 months and Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.06.2021, a written report was filed vide Ex.P-7 by the victim to the effect that the victim’s mother had gone to work with the children and the victim was alone at home, then at 11.30 a.m., the accused came back from work, he found the victim alone at home, raped her and threatened to kill her if she told anyone. On the basis of said written complaint, First Information Report No. 0183/2021 was registered against the accused U/s 376 of IPC and U/s 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act vide Ex.P-8 and the case was taken into consideration.

3. Investigating Officer went to the place of incident on 05.06.2021 and prepared the spot map vide Ex.P-9. Statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P-10 and on the same date, the accused was arrested in front of witnesses and prepared the arrest sheet vide Ex.P-21. The notice of arrest is Ex.P-6. Medical examination of victim was got done by Dr. Karuna Yadav (PW-7) vide Ex.P-2, in which she has stated no injury has been seen on the private part of the victim and therefore, two vaginal slides were prepared vide Ex.P-24. Underwear of the victim was seized vide Ex.P-5 and underwear of the appellant was seizure memo Ex.P-23. The appellant was also medically examined by Dr. Mahendra Jaiswal (PW-8). Seized articles were sent for FSL report vide Ex.P-27 and the FSL report was received vide Ex.P-28, whereby human spermatozoa have been reported to be found in underwear (A) and vaginal slides (B) of the victim and also in underwear (C) of the appellant. After usual investigation chargesheet was filed against the accused before the Additional District Sessions Judge FTC (POCSO Act) Balodabazar, who conducted the trial.

4. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 376(n)(3), 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, read over and explained to the accused, who abjured his guilt.

5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined following witnesses :-

6. Besidesaforesaid ocular evidence, prosecution also exhibited following documents :-