The conviction of the appellant was upheld based on the victim's consistent testimony and corroborating medical evidence, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment :

(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)

1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, (henceforth ‘the Cr.P.C.') questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.09.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Second Fast Track Special Court), Bilaspur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No.08/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

(both the sentences have been directed to be run concurrently)

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11/11/2018, the complainant/informant- uncle of the victim submitted a written complaint to the effect that on 11/11/2018 at about 01:00 pm, Chaiti Bai told him that her niece- victim and another victim had entered the house of appellant- Panbudi Sahu at 12:00 pm and were inside the room till about 12:30 pm. Then those people called the victim and another victim and asked them why they had called Panbudi. The victim and another victim told that they were playing near a peepal tree and Panbudi said that he would give them money and took them inside the room of his house and locked the room. Thereafter, he pulled down the leggings and underwear of another victim and tried to do wrong act with them. Appellant gave Rs.5-5/-to both of them and asked them not to tell anyone and threw them out of the house. While interrogating the victim and another victim, Kejha Sahu, Lakhan Sahu, Dharamdas Manikpuri of the village were present, the father of another victim was also present there. When Panbudi (Mukhiram) was asked why did you do this, he folded his hands and said it was a mistake. On the basis of said complaint, police registered a crime against the accused-appellant under Sections 376, 511, 342 of the Code and Section 8 of the Protection Act .

3. Statements of witnesses were recorded in the case. The accused was arrested after taking action of seizure etc. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, the accused was found guilty under Sections 376, 511, 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 4 of the Protection of Children Act and the charge-sheet was filed in the Court for trial on 15/01/2019.

4. In order to prove the charges against the appellant (accused), prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. Statement of appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no defence witness was examined by the appellant.

5. After appreciation of evidence available on record, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this appeal. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly been convicted the appellant without any sufficient and clinching evidence available on record against the appellant. He further contended that the conclusion given by the learned trial Court in its conclusions in paragraphs 32 to 35 is against the established principle of law because medical examination and chemical test are conducted only to corroborate the truth of the incident which is told on the basis of oral evidence, that is why according to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, provision for medical and chemical test has been made, if the oral evidence of the victim is not confirmed in the said test, then it becomes unreliable. It is further contended that there is no injury was found inside or outside on the body of the victim nor was there any evidence of human semen falling. In such circumstances, there was no evidence of rape of the victim, hence, the punis