Victim testimony in sexual assault cases is compelling without needing corroboration if credible.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. The present appeal filed under Section 374(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been instituted assailing the judgement of conviction dated 21.10.2023 vide which the has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 5 (m), (n) & (p) punishable under Section 6 POCSO Act and order of sentence dated 15.01.2024 in Sessions Case No. 972/2019 arising out of FIR No. 703/2019 registered under Sections 377/380 IPC & 6 of POCSO Act at P.S. Raj Park.

Vide order on sentence, appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years for the offence under Sections 5 (m), (n) & (p) punishable under Section 6 POCSO Act, along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine, appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 02 months. The appellants were also given the benefit of Section 428 CrPC.

2. The facts as noted by the Trial Court in the impugned judgement are extracted herein below:-

“In brief, as per the charge-sheet, on 22.09.2019, DD No. 22A was marked to HC Munde Tuka Ram and thereafter SI Kulbir was called to the spot. The victim 'S' had been sent in a PCR to SGM Hospital for his medical examination and in his MLC, the alleged history of sexual assault (sodomy) was recorded. The statement of the mother of the victim i.e. Smt. "RD‟ was recorded to the effect that they were permanent resident of Bihar and her husband worked in Delhi in a helmet-making factory where the accused Jaswinder @ Sardar @ Kake also worked and he resided with them in the same room. She further stated that on 22.09.2019, in the afternoon, her husband had gone to work and she was present in the room with both her sons as well as the accused. She, further, stated that her son 'S' was lying on the cot with his uncle Sardar while she and her son SO were sleeping on the floor. She further stated that at about 1 PM, she heard the scream of her son 'S' and upon waking up, she saw that the zip of the pants of the accused was open, the underwear of her son ' S' was removed, and the accused had put his hand on the mouth of 'S' so that he would not make any noise upon which she scolded the accused, called her son 'S' towards, her and 'S' informed her that the accused had done wrong act (galat kaam) with him. She further stated that she took both her children out of the room and locked the accused in the room (kundi laga di) telling him that she was going to bring her husband, but she met her husband on the way, and upon returning, she found that the accused had got the neighbours to open the door and had run away along with Rs.3000/- cash and ATM card of SBI.”

3. The charge-sheet came to be filed on 21.11.2019 and charges were framed vide order dated 23.03.2022, under Section 5 (m), (n)& (p) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and in the alternative Section 377 IPC as well as for offence under Section 380 IPC to which, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses, including the victim, who was examined as PW1. The mother and father of the child victim were examined as PW3 and PW4, respectively. Dr. Bina, CMO, SGM Hospital and Dr. Sandip Balar, SR, SGM Hospital, who proved the MLC of the child victim, were examined as PW2 and PW13, respectively. The rest of the witnesses were formal in nature and deposed about the various aspects of the investigation. In defence, statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 CrPC, wherein he denied the prosecution's case, and he also examined his mother as DW2.

4. The first contention raised by the appellant relates to the reliability on the case of the prosecution, as the first information about the incident, as recorded in DD No. 22A (Ex. PX-5) on 22.09.2019, is that a person fled after committing theft. It is next contended that the prosecution's ca