IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the victim's testimony, corroborating evidence, and the stringent approach mandated by the POCSO Act in dealing with sexual offences against children.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. The present appeal is against the judgment dated 06.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Bastar Jagdalpur in Special Sessions Trial No.57 of 2020 whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 376(a) & (b) of IPC and section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and was sentenced to undergo R.I., for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with further default stipulation.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.10.2020 the four years old victim girl whose date of birth was 01.01.2016 was left in the house by her mother as the mother had gone to work. When the mother came back at 11.00 p.m., the victim girl (P.W.1) informed her mother that she was handled by the appellant accused. Having asked properly in detail, the victim has stated that the accused appellant inserted the hand into her vagina. Thereafter, when the accused was called and confronted with his act, they were threatened and eventually the mother of victim lodged a report. With the consent of mother, the child was medically examined and other evidence was also obtained. The evidence including the statements were recorded. Thereafter the charge sheet was filed.

3. During the course of trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in this case examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. Apart from that, X-Ray articles were produced. The defence examined one witness. The learned Sessions Judge, after evaluating the facts and evidence, convicted the accused as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that because of the previous enmity with the father of victim, the appellant has falsely been implicated. He further submits that the medical evidence of the victim does not support the happening of the event, therefore, the conviction could not have been made merely on the statement of victim. He would further submit that alongwith the victim, other girl was also there, however, the statement of such independent evidence was not recorded that makes the prosecution case doubtful. He would submit that under the circumstances, the accused could not have been convicted merely on the statement of victim. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the conviction and sentence is liable to the set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the victim in the instant case was aged about 4 years and her statement in chiefexamination and cross-examination remain unrebutted. She further submits that the statement of victim girl is corroborated by the medical evidence which would lead to evidence that the offence u/s 3(b) of the POCSO Act stands proved. He further submits that though the enmity has been projected but nothing is on record to appreciate, therefore, the conviction is well merited which do not call for any interference.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the evidence. According to the case of prosecution on the date of incident on 21.10.2021 while the 4 years old victim girl was left at home and the mother went out for job, the aggravated penetrative sexual act was committed . The penetrative sexual act was defined u/s 3 of the POCSO Act. The relevant part of section 3(b) purports that the penetrative sexual act will take within its sweep if the accused inserts to any extent any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person. In order to prove the age of the child, the prosecution relied on the Aadhar Card Article 1C and the X-Ray report is on record. According to such report, the age of the victim was in between 3-6 years, which is proved by the statement of P.W.5, the Radiologist Dr.GS. Therefore, primarily the age of the victim was below 12 years which was proved by the prosecution. Apart from this, the physical appearance of the g