The need for corroboration of evidence, especially in cases involving child witnesses, and the rebuttable nature of the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No.1.

2. This appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Tinsukia in POCSO Case No. 22(M)/2016, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred as POCSO Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, simple imprisonment for 3(three) months.

3. The mother of the victim, Rina Gogoi lodged an FIR on 27.10.2014 before the Officer-in-Charge, Pengaree P.S. stating inter-alia that the accused/appellant committed rape on her 14 years old daughter for which she became pregnant. Later on, the wife of the appellant took her daughter to the government hospital secretly and her pregnancy was terminated. On receipt of the FIR, a case was registered vide Pengaree P.S. Case No. 54/14 under Section 376(D) IPC r/w Section 4 of POCSO Act and started investigation on the basis of the FIR. During investigation, the investigating officer visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses and the accused was also arrested. The victim was examined by the doctor and her statement was also recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/appellant under Section 376 IPC r/w Section 4 of POCSO Act.

4. During trial, charge was framed under Section 376 IPC r/w Section 4 of POCSO Act against the accused/appellant which was read over and explained to the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution examined 9(nine) witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant. On the other hand, the accused/appellant also adduced 2(two) witnesses in support of his case. After completion of the trial, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein incriminating materials found in the evidence of the witnesses were put to him to which he denied the same and pleaded his innocence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Special Judge, Tinsukia convicted the accused/appellant as aforesaid. Hence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

6. It was urged by Ms. B. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae that the accused/appellant is the maternal uncle of the victim. The prosecution case is based on a concocted story and that there is lack of evidence on record to sustain the conviction recorded by the trial court against the appellant. It is contended that other than the evidence of the victim, all other evidence of prosecution witnesses is hearsay evidence, which is not so much of value. Even the evidence of the victim cannot be said to be trustworthy and unimpeachable so as to prove the prosecution case.

7. It is further contended that since the victim is a child of tender age, who was susceptible to tutoring, as such, corroboration of her evidence was necessary, which was missing in the present case. It is also submitted by learned Amicus Curiae that there was no medical evidence to corroborate the claims made by the prosecution that the appellant had committed rape on the victim, as a result of which she became pregnant.

8. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant also argued that the accused was convicted for a period of 7 years in the year 2018 and he has completed more than 5 years in jail hazot. Under such backdrop, considering the evidence and the materials available on the record, the accused be acquitted on benefit of doubt.

9. In response, Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that there was sufficient evidence on record to sustain the conviction imposed by the trial court against the appellant. The evidence of the victim alone