The evidentiary value of the victim's testimony in cases of sexual assault and the absence of the need for corroboration, as well as the discretion of the court in determining the quantum of sentence and fine.

Heard Mr. P. Garodia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.

2. In this appeal, under Section 374(2) of the C.P.C., the appellant namely, Mantu Kumar, has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 01.07.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), Amingaon, Kamrup, in Special (P) Case No. 48/2019.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 1.07.2022, the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), Amingaon, Kamrup, in Special (P) Case No. 48/2019, has convicted the appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 30,000/- with default stipulation.

4. The background fact leading to filing of this appeal is briefly stated as under:-

“On 20.07.2019, at about 11 am, the victim, Smti ‘X’ (name withheld), aged 16 years was alone in her house. Then the appellant entered into her house, situated at Natun Batabari, under Palashbari P.S., and touched her breast and gave her obscene gestures. But, the victim girl, somehow, manages to escape from there. Thereafter, the victim girl has reported the matter to her mother Namita Boro and then her mother had lodged the FIR with the In-Charge (I.C.) of Rani Outpost under Palashbari Police Station (P.S.). Upon the said FIR the Officer In-Charge (O/C) of Rani Police Out Post had recorded a GD Entry and forwarded the FIR to the O/C of Palashbari P.S. and upon the same, the O/C of Palashbari P.S. registered a case, being Palashbari P.S. Case No. 313/2019, under Section 448 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act and thereafter, carried out the investigation, which culminated in submission of Charge Sheet, against the appellant, to stand trial in the court, under Section 448 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter, the learned court below had taken cognizance of the offences, under Section 448 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Then after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the learned court below had framed charges, under Section 448 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act against the appellant and on being read and explained over the same to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution side, then, examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 5 documents in support of the charges. After closing the prosecution evidence, the learned court below had examined the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, hearing arguments of learned counsel for both the parties, the learned court below, while acquitting the appellant of the charge under section 448 IPC, had convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.”

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 1.07.2022, on the following grounds :-

(i) That, the learned court below has passed the impugned judgment and order on surmises, assumption and conjectures and the materials on record do not establish the guilty of the appellant, beyond all reasonable doubt;

(ii) That, the learned court below has misread and misinterpreted the evidence on record and arrived at an erroneous decision;

(iii) That, there is no credible as well as reliable evidence on record so as to sustain the conviction, under Section 8 of the POCSO Act;

(iv) That, there is material contradiction in the version of the victim girl under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and her evidence before the court;

(v) That, the victim girl was medically examined, but the medical report of the victim girl was not produced and exhibited before the court, which raised doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version;

(vi) That, the learned court below has failed to appreciate the difference between chest and breast;

(vii) That, the prosecution side has fai