The credibility of a minor victim's testimony and the presence of corroborating evidence are crucial in cases of sexual assault.

JUDGMENT :

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

Heard Mr. K. Goswami, learned Amicus Curiae for the Appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Charaideo in Sessions Case No.217(S-C)/2010, whereby the appellant is convicted under Section 376 (2) (f) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 18.09.2010, at about 9.00 AM, when the victim girl, aged about 8 years was not found in the house at the time when she was supposed to go to school, her mother searched for her and then it was found that she returned from the nearby tea garden and upon asking, she reported her mother that the accused took her to his nearby tea garden by inducing her to take honey comb and thereafter he committed rape upon her. The matter was immediately informed to the concerned Gaonbura and thereafter filed the FIR before the O/C concerned and accordingly the case was registered as Borhat P.S. Case No.58/2010, under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC against the accused person. The victim was medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused person under Section 376 (2)(f) IPC for trial.

4. The accused faced the trial and denied the charge framed in the said Section of law and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of the case. No defence evidence was adduced on the part of the accused person. Statement of the accused person was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has denied all the allegations. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court found and hold the accused guilty under the aforesaid Section of law and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence the appeal.

5. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the evidence of the victim is doubtful inasmuch as she did not raise any protest at the time of occurrence whereas the place of occurrence is near to her house and the medical evidence is also not supportive of sexual intercourse as has been alleged by the victim girl. Another limb of argument is that there is no other eye witness to the occurrence even though place of occurrence was adjacent to the house of the victim and all other witnesses are hearsay witnesses. That being so, the accused deserves the benefit of doubt. On the other hand, Mr. D. Das, the learned counsel for the State respondent vehemently submitted that prosecution has sufficiently proved the charge against the accused person and the evidence of the victim who is a minor girl aged about 8 years at the time of occurrence cannot be discarded only because that she made no hue and cry at the time of occurrence and for non-finding of any injury in her private parts. It has been submitted that the medical report itself indicates that there is mark of injury on her breasts although there is no other injury on her private parts. But the evidence of the victim is specific about the occurrence. Her verbal testimony remains consistent all throughout the trial corroborated by the other evidence on record.

6. The evidence on record has been pressed into by the learned counsel for both the parties in support of their contentions raised before this Court and I have also gone through the evidence carefully. It must be born in mind that the victim here is a minor aged about 8 ears, a student of class-II at the time of occurrence. By the time she gave evidence, she was 10 years. Another notable aspect of the case is that the accused is a close relative of the informant/the victim girl (brother-in-law of the informant) and his house is also adjacent to the house of the informant as well. There also appe