The consistent testimony of a minor victim is sufficient to support a conviction under the POCSO Act, despite minor inconsistencies in medical evidence.

Judgment :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

1.Heard Mr. N. K. Kalita, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 and Ms. M. Barman, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment & order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Barpeta (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”), in Special POCSO Case No. 152/2021, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act”), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 (twenty) years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default of payment of the fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the wife of the accused, i.e., Niru Banikya (informant/PW-1), lodged an F.I.R. on 26.06.2021 before the Barpeta Sadar P.S., alleging, inter- alia, that though her eldest daughter/victim/PW-2, aged 15 years, had been brought up in her maternal house and was continuing her studies by living there, about four months back, upon her husband, i.e., the accused/appellant, forcing her, she brought the victim back to their house and was living with them in their rented house. It is further alleged that about 3 ½ months ago, when she had gone to work in another person’s house, the accused/appellant, by taking advantage of her absence, committed rape upon the victim. It is further alleged that later when the victim told her about the said incident, she threatened her husband not to do such an act again; however, the accused/appellant assaulted both her and the victim with firewood and confined them in the house and had also often established a physical relationship with the victim. Upon her asking the victim, she disclosed the entire incident to their neighbor, who thereafter informed the police.

5. During the trial the prosecution examined 7 witnesses including the informant (PW-1), victim (PW-2), Dr. Mrs Renuka Rongpharpi (PW-3), neighbours, i.e., Anushree Das (PW-4), Puja Pathak (PW-5), Hemen Das (PW-6) and the Investigating Officer (PW-7).

6. After completion of recording of evidence, all the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused/appellant during his recording of statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”), wherein though he admitted that the victim is aged 15 years, he generally denied all the other incriminating circumstances having arisen against him during the trial. He further did not adduce any evidence.

7. The trial court, after hearing the learned counsels for both the parties, rendered its judgment & 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.

8. Mr. N. K. Kalita, learn