The testimony of a victim of sexual assault is credible and does not require corroboration for conviction, emphasizing the need for sensitivity in evaluating such cases.

Judgment :

(Ramesh Sinha, CJ.)

1. This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.10.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon in Special Criminal Case No.04/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 376(3) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life till natural death and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Jyoti Gupta who is working as a member in NGO of Railway Child Help Line, Raipur, submitted a written complaint (Ex.P-13) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Mana Camp, Raipur that the victim (PW-6) (name and village omitted) is a resident of Police Station Dongargarh. The girl was physically abused by the father of the victim on 19.02.2019, due to which the girl came to Raipur from her home, who was received by Railway Child Line, Raipur from Railway Station Raipur in a guardianless condition. The girl was counseled and presented before the Child Welfare Committee on 01.03.2019, in which an order was received from the Child Welfare Committee to register an FIR in respect of the girl in Police Station Mana Camp. After the said order, the complainant made a written complaint in Police Station Mana Camp, Raipur. On the written complaint of the complainant, FIR No.0/2019 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’ and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 (for short ‘POCSO’) was registered against appellant at Police Station Mana Camp, Raipur. Since the incident was related to Bortalab Police Station, FIR No.06/19 under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act was registered at Bortalab Police Station vide Ex.P-14.

3. During the investigation, birth information register from the Kotwar, mark sheet of class 5^th and 6^th of the victim and admission register from the concerned school were seized to determine the age of the victim. A map of the place of incident was prepared. A site map of the incident was obtained from patwari. The victim (PW-6) was examined. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 CrPC vide Ex.P-7. The appellant was arrested on 4.3.2019 vide Ex.P- 26. Panty worn by the victim and her vaginal slide were seized. The seized panty and vaginal slide of the victim were sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for chemical examination.

4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Court under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

5. The trial Court has framed the charges under Section 376(3) of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act against the appellant.

6. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is bad in law. There is no evidence against the appellant and the case of the prosecution is based on surmises, so the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted. He further submits that the learned trial Court has erred in believing the statement of the prosecutrix because there is large large number of contradictions amongst the statement of the prosecution witnesses. There is no legally admissible evidence in support of age