The testimony of a victim, particularly a minor or disabled, can substantiate a conviction in sexual assault cases without needing corroboration, provided it is credible and consistent.

JUDGMENT :

Mitali Thakuria, J.

Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent.

2. This appeal has been preferred from the jail against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Udalguri in Special POCSO Case No.05/2019, arising out of Mazbat P.S. Case No.58/2018 and convicted the accused/appellant under Section 376(2)(k) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and applying the provision under Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only, with default stipulation, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It is also observed by the learned Special Judge, Udalguri that though initially the charge was framed against the accused appellant under Section 376(2)(I) IPC by his predecessor but considering the mental and physical disability of the victim, the charge is accordingly altered at the time of passing the judgment and accordingly he is convicted under Section 376(2)(k) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that a girl of 12 years old, who is deaf and dumb is the victim of this case who was alleged to have been raped by the accused appellant on 24.10.2018 at about 3 p.m. in her own house, while the victim was alone. To that effect, her father Mochahari lodged an FIR at Mazbat Police Station on 24.10.2018 itself, which is accordingly registered as the Mazbat P.S. Case No.58/2018, under Section 376AB IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

4. After receiving the charge sheet and on committal of the case, the learned Special Judge, after hearing the parties had framed the charge under Section 376(2)(I) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 8 witnesses including the informant, the victim, the investigating officer and the Medical Officer and also exhibited some documents, including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC.

6. The accused appellant did not adduce any evidence in support of his case and he took the plea of total denial in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. Thereafter, hearing the argument put forwarded by the learned counsel for both sides, the learned Special Judge, Udalguri accordingly passed the impugned judgment and order convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376(2)(k) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and applying the provision under Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only, with default stipulation, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

7. Mr. M. Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that there is no eye witness to the prosecution case and all the witnesses are the hearsay witnesses and the learned Special Judge, Udalguri passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction solely on the basis of the evidence adduced by the victim/prosecutrix and on the circumstantial evidence. Mr. Dutta, the learne