IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the testimony of a minor victim in sexual assault cases is credible and sufficient for conviction, especially under the POCSO Act, where the burden of proof shifts to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. P.P. for the State and Ms. N. Anju, learned legal aid counsel for the respondent no.2.

2. This Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, is directed against the Judgment and order dated 18.10.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO), Aalo, in POCSO Case No. 02/2021, whereby, the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years for the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-with a default stipulation to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months.

3. The case set up by the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.11.2020 at around 1545 hours a written FIR was lodged at Police Station, Aalo, by the father of the victim girl, alleging that on 16.11.2020 one Shri Shivkant Mishra (appellant herein) Principal In-charge of ITBP School, Aalo, had sexually assaulted his minor daughter, a student of class-IX of ITBP Public School, Aalo, by touching her breast and other body parts with sexual intent.

4. On receipt of the said FIR, Aalo P.S. Case No. 72/2020, under Section 354-A IPC and Section 10 of POCSO Act was registered. The Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of the witnesses including that of the complainant father, victim and mother of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.PC. The original birth certificate of the victim was seized on being produced by the mother of the victim. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. PC.

5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO in short) had visited the place of occurrence and drawn up the rough sketch map of place of occurrence. The IO had also recorded the statement of other relevant witnesses.

6. On completion of the investigation, the I/O had filed charge-sheet against the accused appellant under Section 354-A IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Thereafter, the Court had framed the charges against the accused appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, read with Section 354-A IPC. The accused appellant, on being read over of the charges, pleaded not guilty and claim for trial.

7. During the course of the trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 13 (thirteen) prosecution witnesses and had exhibited documents through these witnesses and closed the evidence. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The defence has examined two defence witnesses including the accused appellant.

8. Learned Special Judge, (POCSO), on consideration of the evidences and materials available on record, has held that the accused/appellant had committed an offence of sexual assault on victim girl in his office chamber on 16.11.2020 at about 11.00 A.M. and convicted the accused appellant and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 7(seven) years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-with default stipulation to undergo further simple imprisonment of 3 (three) months by holding that the accused appellant had committed an offence of aggravated sexual assault on victim girl as defined under clause (f) of Section 9 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

9. Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the allegation against the accused/appellant, is that he had assaulted the victim on two occasions on 16.11.2020, firstly, when the victim with her classmates went to request for transportation and secondly, after an hour when she was called through her class teacher. Whereas, the defence of the appellant is that a bottle of local liquor was recovered from the bag of the victim and as such, false allegations have been labelled against the appellant.

10. He submits that the deposition of the victim before the court is contradictory to the statements made under Section 164 Cr.PC. The victim had stated that in the first instance, the appellant hu