The prosecution must prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt; reliance solely on the victim's testimony is insufficient if unsupported by corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. D. Majumdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Lazi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. S.V. Darang learned Amicus Currie.

2. This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant Sri Padi Tamo, assailing the judgment and order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Yupia, in POCSO Case No. 40/2018 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for another 3 (three) months.

3. The case set up by the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.04.2016, one Smti Yashi Dulom, lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer-In-Charge, Women Police Station, Itanagar, alleging that her neighbor one Sri Padi Tamo, residing at Old I.B. Line, C-sector, Itanagar, raped her 13 years old daughter Miss ‘M’ (name withheld), a student of Class-VI during the month of December, 2015, on being stated by the victim. It is also stated that the matter was disclosed only after the medical formalities were done by the complainant on her daughter on being complained of having pain in the stomach and her unusual appearance.

4. On receipt of the FIR, a case was registered being Itanagar Women Police Station Case No.27/2016 under Section 376 (2)(i) of IPC, 1860 read with section 6 of POCSO Act against the accused/appellant. During the course of investigation, the investigating Officer (in short I.O.) visited the place of occurrence, prepared the scene of crime and drawn sketch map of the place of occurrence, taken photograph of place of occurrence and examined the complainant, victim girl and after examining the witnesses recorded their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The accused/appellant was arrested on 08.04.2016. The statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C were also recorded.

5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under section 341/342/376(2)(i)/506 IPC read with section 6 of the PCSO Act on 16.05.2006.

6. Learned trial Court framed the charge on 19.06.2019 against the accused/appellant under section 6 of POCSO Act. The accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined in all 6 (six) witnesses. Prosecution evidence was closed on 06.08.2022 and thereafter, the accused/appellant was examined on 29.08.2023 under section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the allegations. Thereafter, the accused/appellant adduced one defence witness as DW-1. On consideration of the evidence and the materials available on record, the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Yupia, has convicted the accused/appellant under section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment as mentioned above.

8. Mr. D. Majumdar, learned Senior Counsel, submits that there are contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutrix. In the section 161 Cr.PC statement recorded by the I.O., the victim has stated that in the month of December, 2015 the accused appellant called her and asked her to go to nearby shop to bring some eatable thing and she went to the nearby shop and came back