In cases of sexual assault against minors, credible testimony from the victim can suffice for conviction without corroboration, emphasizing the need for sensitivity in handling such cases.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court to represent the appellant in the present criminal appeal. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state respondent, and Ms. N. Deka, learned Legal Aid Counsel to represent the informant/victim.

2. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (M), in Sessions (Spl.) Case No.43/2021, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’) and sentenced thereof to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 25 (twenty five) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for another 6 (six) months.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 12.10.2020, an F.I.R. was lodged by the mother of the victim girl, i.e., PW-1 alleging, inter-alia, that her sister-in-law informed her over the phone about 4 (four) days ago that the accused/appellant had committed rape upon the victim by threatening her, while she was living with the accused/appellant and upon asking the victim girl, she affirmed the same. Accordingly, a case was registered as Geetanagar P.S. Case No.316/2020 dated 12.10.2020 under Section 3 76(f) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter, the investigating officer, i.e., P.W.6 upon being endorsed to investigate the case, examined the informant/P.W.2, the victim/P.W. 1, and other witnesses and also seized the birth certificate and produced the victim/P.W.2 for medical examination as well as for recording her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’). Thereafter, he also arrested the accused/appellant. After completion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused/appellant vide charge sheet no. 24 dated 18.07.2021, under Section 376(f) of the IPC read with Section 5(n)/6 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges under Section 3 76(2)(f) of the IPC read with Section 5 (n)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012, against the accused/appellant, on 29.12.2021, and upon the accused/appellant pleading not guilty, the trial commenced.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined 6 (six) prosecution witnesses, including the informant/P.W.2, the victim/P.W.1, and the investigation officer. After completion of the trial, all the incriminating circumstances were put before the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the accused/appellant denied the allegations and explained that since the informant/P.W. 2 left his house, she tutored the victim to depose falsely against him, however, he did not depose any defence witness to prove his innocence.

5. After completion of the evidence and hearing, the trial court rendered its judgment and order, which is under appeal before this court, whereunder the accused/appellant was held guilty of the offence charged and accordingly convicted and sentenced thereof. Situated thus, the present criminal appeal has been preferred.

6. Ms. B. Sarma, learned amicus curiae submits that the trial court did not consider the explanation given by the accused/appellant in his 313 examination, and therefore, the impugned judgment and order warrants