The testimony of a minor victim in sexual assault cases is sufficient for conviction without corroboration, as long as it is credible and inspires confidence.

Judgment :

(Ramesh Sinha, CJ.)

1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sakib Ahmad, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State.

2. This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment dated 28.08.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No. 08 of 2020, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.05.2020, the father (PW-2) of the victim lodged a written complaint to the Police Station that his daughter was abducted by a person wearing a ‘Khaki’ uniform, claiming to be a Police Officer, while the victim was playing with her friends near a primary school. The incident occurred around 6:30 p.m. Based on the written complaint (Ex.P/2), a First Information Report (FIR) vide Ex.P/3 was registered at Tamnar Police Station under Crime No. 164 of 2020, invoking Sections 363 and 365 of the IPC. The investigation led to the recovery of the victim from the custody of the accused, along with the motorcycle and ‘Khaki’ uniform, which was used in the crime. During the investigation, the birth certificate of the victim was seized. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and a medical examination was conducted.

4. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 419, 363, 365, 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act before the learned Additional Session Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) and the case was registered as Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No. 08 of 2020. The statements of witnesses were recorded.

5. Learned trial Court framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 363 & 365 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act read over and explained to the accused, who abjured his guilt.

6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents in support of case of the prosecution. The appellant has neither examined any witness in his defence nor exhibited any document.

7. 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. The defence has neither examined any witness nor has exhibited any document.

8. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and considering that it is the appellant who have committed aforesaid offence, convicted and sentenced him in the aforementioned manner, against which the appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused/appellant.

9. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that the prosecution witnesses have made contradictory statements and there are so many omissions and improvements in their statements and as such the same do not inspire confident so as to convict the appellant. He further argued that the FIR has been registered against the unknown person and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He also argued that except victim there is no credible evidence in support of her statement even deposition of her father is bas