IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that the testimony of a minor victim, supported by medical and documentary evidence, can be sufficient to establish guilt in cases of sexual offenses.

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. Appellant – Gajju Lal Fenkar has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) questioning the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO Act), Balodabazar (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.29/2022 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Gajju Lal Fenkar), whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 450 of the IPC and Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 6 months and rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with 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 the complainant father of the prosecutrix had made an oral report before Police Station, Palari, District – Balodabazar, alleging that on 25.02.2022 the present appellant entered into his house and committed rape on his minor daughter. On aforesaid allegation, FIR (Ex.P-1) has been registered in Crime No. 97/2022 against the accused/ appellant under Section 376, 450 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

3. During the course of investigation, a spot map of the incident site was prepared. Regarding providing a visual map of the incident, a memo was written and a visual map was prepared by the Patwari. Underwear/panties and frocks were confiscated from the victim and the accused. Regarding the age of the victim, a memo was written to the head of the Primary School, Sisdevari and the dismissal register was confiscated and given on the original certificate. For examining the genital of the victim, consent was taken from the victim and her parents and a memo was written to the Women’s Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Palari and the report was obtained. A memo was filed for underwear testing related to the victim and the accused and its report was obtained. After the genital examination and underwear examination of the victim and the accused, a memo was written as per Ex.P-27 for the final report to be given to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, the acknowledgment of which was received vide Ex.P-28 and the final FSL report was obtained vide Ex.P-29.

4. After completion of investigation, the police submitted the police report alongwith charge-sheet against the appellant/convict before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO Act), Balodabazar (C.G.), where the case was commenced for trial in Special Case No. 29/2022 and charges were framed under Sections 450, 376(3) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

5. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the circumstances appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He has not examined any witness in his defence.

6. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents (Exhibits P-1 to P-29).

7. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2023 convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred by them calling in question the impugned judgment.

8. Mr. Saurabh Dangi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence against the appellant and the case of the prosecution is based on surmises. He further submits that the appellant is an old man aged about 65 years on the alleged date of incident, he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the crime in question, there was no eyewitne