The testimony of a minor victim in sexual assault cases holds significant evidentiary weight and can lead to conviction without corroboration if credible.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Medhi , J.

The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Corresponding to Section 4 15 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Tinsukia in POCSO Case No. 50/2023 under Section 4 (2) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (hereinafter POCSO Act), arising out of Lekhapani P.S. Case No. 33/2023 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in default of fine to simple imprisonment of 4 months.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar by PW- 1, who is the father of the victim on 12.04.2023. It has been stated that on 11.04.2023 his minor daughter aged about 12 years informed her female friends that she was forcefully sexually assaulted for past 7 or 8 months by the appellant and was also threatened not to disclose the matter to anybody. Accordingly, the information was lodged. Based on the said Ejahar, the FIR was registered and investigation was done, leading to laying of a charge-sheet. The statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC (Corresponding to Section 183 of BNSS ). The charges were, accordingly framed under Section 4 (2) of the POCSO Act and on the accused pleading not guilty, the trial had begun, in which evidence of 9 nos. of prosecution witnesses were adduced.

3. PW1 is the informant, who is the father of the victim girl. He deposed that the incident took place about 4 months back. He said that the appellant had taken his victim daughter to his house on the pretext of returning a small pot belonging to her Aita (grandmother). Then, the appellant took her inside the T.V. room and the appellant pressed the mouth of the victim and inserted his urinating organ into the urinating organ of the victim. The victim accordingly told them about the incident. He had then lodged the Ejahar which was proved Exhibit P/1. He deposed that the present age of his daughter is about 13 years. He also stated that as per the material Exhibit 1, which is the birth certificate, proved in original by him, the date of birth of the victim is 13.12.2010. He is also a witness to the seizure of the wearing apparel of the victim which was proved as Exhibit P/2. He also deposed that the appellant had admitted his guilt.

4. On being cross examined, the PW1 deposed that he does not know how to read and write but, he knows how to put his signature. He deposed that he does not know the contents of Exhibit P/1 but he lodged the Ejahar about 3 days after the incident as he was at Liaka. He stated that the appellant is his neighbour and works as a quack. He further stated that he had previously taken treatment from the appellant for his kidney stone. He also mentioned that the victim suffered from Japanese encephalitis and she recieved treatment at AMCH, Dibrugarh, around 5 years back. He stated that the victim told him about the incident in the presence of his neighbours Jugo Padon (PW7), Rakesh Pegu and Tekeswar Doley. He denied the suggestion that the appellant had not committed any such act on his daughter as deposed by him. He denied the suggestion that he had lodged the case falsely against the appellant as he had asked for the cost of treatment given to his daughter for Japanese encephalitis.

5. PW2 is the victim. Before being examined, the PW2 was asked certain questions to assess her level of understanding by the learned Trial Court and was satisfied. The victim deposed that she knows the appellant and used to call him mama. She deposed that the incident took place abo