A victim's credible testimony is sufficient for conviction in sexual assault cases, affirming the standard that corroboration is not mandatory when the victim's account is trustworthy.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (the CrPC) the sole accused in SC No. 153 of 2013 on the file of the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the PoCSO Act), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, assails the conviction and the sentence imposed upon him for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the PoCSO Act.

2. The prosecution case is that on 08.09.2013 at about 4:30 PM, the accused committed aggravated sexual assault on PW4, a minor aged about 3 years, at RZ-224/6, Gali No. 4, J Block, West Sagarapur, New Delhi by removing the victim’s under-garment and holding her tightly. Thus, as per the Charge sheet/final report, the accused was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 , 354D IPC and Sections 8 , 9 (m) read with section 10 of the PoCSO Act.

3. On the basis of Ext. PW3/A FIS of PW7, given on 08.09.2013, Crime no. 179/2013, Sagarpur Police station, that is, Ext. PW7/B FIR was registered by PW7Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI). PW9 conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same filed the charge-sheet/final report alleging commission of offences punishable under the above mentioned Sections.

4. When the accused was produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.PC. After hearing both sides, the trial court as per order dated 31.10.2013, framed a Charge under Sections9(m) and 10 of the PoCSO Act, which was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 9 were examined and Exts. PW3/A-F, PW5/A, PW6/A, PW7/A-B, PW8/A-C, PW9/A-B were marked in support of the case.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 CrPC regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He submitted that he had been falsely implicated in this case as Ram Naresh (PW2, the paternal uncle of PW4) and family wanted him to vacate his house and leave the area as years back, he had married a widow, which was not acceptable to the latter.

7. After questioning the accused under Section 313 CrPC, compliance of Section 232 CrPC was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under CrPC is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings, unless omission to comply the same is shown to have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (SeeMoidu K. vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to him. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.

8. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 31.03.2025 held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 10 of the PoCSO Act and hence sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to fine of ₹ 10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for five months. Aggrieved, the accused has preferred this present appeal.

9. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the prosecution has misconceived the act of the accused in holding PW4, the victim. It was submitted that PW4 was of tender age and incapabl