The credibility of the victim's testimony and the lack of requirement for corroboration in certain cases were the central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

M.Zothankhuma, J

Heard Ms. B. Sarma, the learned Amicus Curiae and Ms. S. Jahan, the learned Additional P.P., Assam.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 23.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, (POCSO), Baska, Mushalpur in Special (POCSO) Case No. 2/2020, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to suffer a rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 8 months.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that an FIR dated 22.10.2019 was submitted by Prosecution Witness-1 (PW-1), who is the father of the victim girl. The FIR states that at around 2 PM on 21.10.2019, the appellant had taken the minor daughter (6 years) of PW-1 to his farm and raped her. PW-1 also states that his daughter informed him of the same on returning home. In pursuance to the FIR, Tamulpur U.D.S. P.S. Case No. 499/2019 under Section 376 IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act was registered. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer (PW-5) submitted a chargesheet, on finding a prima facie case under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the appellant. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 by the learned Trial Court, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The learned Trial Court examined five prosecution witnesses and after examining the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of the offence under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act. The appellant was accordingly convicted under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act and sentenced accordingly.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the investigation was very shoddy, inasmuch as the mother of the victim girl was not made a prosecution witness and was not examined by the prosecution. Further, though PW-1 had stated in his evidence that the panty of the victim girl was wet with blood, the said panty had not been seized by the police. No garments of the victim girl or the appellant were seized, to prove that any blood or spermatozoa was present in the garments of the above two persons, which could have proven the guilt of the appellant. She also submits that the explanation given by the appellant during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not been considered by the learned Trial Court, prior to making a finding as to whether the appellant was guilty of the offence.

6. Ms. S. Jahan, the learned Additional P.P. submits that there is no contradiction in the evidence of the victim (PW-2) vis-a-vis her statements given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. She submits that though the police had not seized the panty of the victim or the clothes of the appellant, to enable the FSL to examine whether any blood or spermatozoa was present in the garments of both the persons, the same does not take away the fact that the appellant had raped the victim, as had been proved by the evidence of the PW-2 and the doctor (PW-4), who examined the victim. She also submits that the evidence of PW-2 has been corroborated by her father, PW-1. She thus submits that the impugned judgment should not be interfered with.

7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

8. The evidence of PW-2 (victim) is to the effect that while she was playing with her friends in the field, the appellant drove away her friends and held her back. Thereafter the appellant pushed the victim to the banks of the pond and opened her panty. He inserted his private parts into the private parts of the victim, which made the victim cry. Blood came out from her private parts and she felt pain. The appellant thereafter give her potatoes. She ran back home and reported the incident to her father. PW-2 further states that her father took her to the doctor, where she was given medicines.

9. Though the father (PW-1) in his cross-examinat