In sexual assault cases, conviction may rely on the victim’s sole testimony, but credibility and corroboration are essential, especially in light of discrepancies.

JUDGMENT :

(M. Zothankhuma, J)

1. Heard Mr. A. Rahman, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State and Ms. L. Devi, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, who is the mother of the victim.

2. This appeal is against the judgment dated 13/05/2021 passed by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri in Special Case No. 9/2019, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 6 POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 6(six) months.

3. The prosecution case is that on 30.09.2018, PW-2 submitted an FIR dated 30.09.2018 to the Officer-in-Charge, Dhubri Sadar Police Station, stating that she had come to learn that on 30.09.2018, at around 5 a.m., the appellant had called her daughter of 15 years, by way of a mobile call from number 9101584490 on the pretext of marrying her. However, the appellant in collusion with 4 unknown persons gagged her daughter (PW-3) and took her to an unknown place in Dharmasala Part-IV. After raping PW-3 (victim), the appellant handed over PW-3 to the four unknown persons. When they tried to rape PW-3 and had outraged her modesty by removing her clothes, PW-3 ran away to save her life and took shelter in the house of a family in the village. On her daughter being noticed by members of the family in the village, they questioned her. Then the appellant arrived at the village looking for PW-3. On being identified by PW-3, the appellant was detained by the villagers.

4. In view of the FIR lodged by PW-2, Dhubri P.S. Case No.1485/2018 under Sections 366A/120B/ 341/376D/354 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act was registered. The I.O., after completing the investigation, submitted his charge-sheet, having found a prima facie case under Sections 341 /376 IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the appellant. Charge under Section 376(3) of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 were thereafter framed by the learned Trial Court, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Trial Court, thereafter, examined 7 prosecution witnesses and after examining the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of having committed the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and also under Section 376(3) of the IPC. The appellant was thereafter convicted only under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, in view of Section 4 2 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.

5. The appellant’s counsel submits that there are contradictions in the statements given by the victim (PW-3) under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 164 Cr.P.C. and in the Trial Court. He also submits that there are contradictions in the statements given by the informant, when comparing her evidence vis-à-vis the FIR and the contents of the 161 Cr.P.C. statement. He also submits that there are contradictions in the place of occurrence of the incident of alleged rape, inasmuch as, it has been stated that the place of occurrence was Dharmasala Part-IV, while the sketch map shows the place of occurrence to be Chitlapul.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the Doctor’s medical report does not indicate that the appellant had raped the victim on 30.09.2018. In any event, the appellant had not raped the victim. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that though there was a romantic relat