IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the conviction based on the credible testimony of the minor victim, emphasizing that minor inconsistencies do not undermine her credibility.

JUDGMENT :

(Suman Shyam, J.)

Heard Ms. S. Borpujari, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the sole appellant. We have also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing on behalf of the State. Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent No.2/informant.

2. This Criminal Appeal from Jail is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.07.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jorhat in Special Case No.34 of 2019 whereby, the sole appellant was convicted under Section 376 AB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and also to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

3. The prosecution case, as unfolded from the materials available on record, in a nutshell, is that on 26.06.2019, the mother of the victim had lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Ladoigarh Police Outpost informing him that on 19.06.2019, she, along with her 12 years old daughter, had gone to the house of ‘Bogai’ at Holongapara. She had washed clothes in Bogai’s house and thereafter, sent her daughter to fetch the clothes from the upper floor of the house. At that time, Md. Samsul Hussain committed rape on her daughter inside a large room located in the upper floor of the house. That day, her daughter did not say anything. On 26.06.2019, at around 4:00 p.m. when her daughter was playing, Samsul gave her Rs.20/- and asked her to accompany him to the jungle. However, instead of accompanying Samsul she came running home and at around 7:00 p.m. her daughter had told her (victim’s) sister-in-law, viz., Ms. Jerina Begum about the incident and Jerina informed her about the matter. When they asked Samsul regarding the incident, a chaotic situation arose. The public had apprehended Samsul and handed him over to the police.

4. Based on the ejahar dated 26.06.2019, Teok P.S. Case No.291/2019 was registered under Section 376 AB of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The matter was thereafter taken up for investigation by the police. On completion of investigation the I.O. had submitted charge-sheet. Accordingly, charge was framed against the appellant/accused to which he had pleaded not guilty. As such, the appellant was subjected to trial. On conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judge had convicted the accused/appellant under Section 376AB of the IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.

5. From a careful reading of the materials on record, it appears that the conviction of the appellant is primarily based on the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix. Law is well settled that in a case of this nature, conviction can be awarded solely on the basis of evidence of the prosecutrix provided the version of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. [ See Ganesan Vs. State (2020)10 SCC 573]. However, if there are inconsistencies in the version of the prosecutrix, then it would be incumbent upon the Court to look for corroboration.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing in this case has argued that the version of the prosecutrix is full of contradictions and there is no corroboration of the prosecution story by the other witnesses. As such, the conviction of the appellant in this case is unsustainable in the eyes of law and hence, liable to be set aside by this Court. In order to examine the said contention, it would be necessary for this Court to go through the materials available on record.

7. As noted above, the victim girl was about 11 years old when the incident allegedly took place on 19.06.2019. The evidence of the victim was recorded on oath by the learned trial Court on 17.12.2019 i.e. barely after six months of the occurrence. The victim girl, who was examined as PW-1, has deposed to the effect that at the time of the incident, her age was about 11 ½ years. Her mother Ms. Mina Begum is the complainant in this case. She knew the accused, who is her