A prosecutrix's credible testimony can be sufficient for conviction in sexual assault cases even without corroboration, provided it is reliable and consistent.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. J.H. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent.

2. This is an appeal u/s 397 Cr.PC read with Sections 401 & 482 Cr.PC against the impugned judgment & order dated 02.05.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Bongaigaon in Criminal Appeal No. 62(4)/2014 upholding the judgment & order dated 19.11.2014 passed by learned JMFC, Bongaigaon arising out of G.R. Case No. 133/2014 convicting the accused/petitioner to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year for the offence committed u/s 354 IPC and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-in default Simple Imprisonment for another 3 months.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 24.02.2014 an FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2 before the North Bongaigaon P.P. alleging inter alia that on 24.02.2014 at 1:45 PM she along with her mother-in-law Smt. Kathani Ray aged about 65 years went to Swagat Hospital for X-Ray as per suggestion of doctor. But, at the time of taking X-Ray of her mother-in-law, the accused touched her chest outraging her modesty. Accordingly, the case was registered under Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 89/2014 u/s 354 IPC and started investigation. On completion of the investigation the police filed charge-sheet against the present accused/petitioner u/s 354 IPC before the learned CJM and the case was accordingly transferred to the Court of learned JMFC for disposal.

4. After appearance of the accused/petitioner he was explained with the offence to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses including the informant and one witness was examined by the defence. The defence took the plea of total denial at the time of his examination u/s 313 Cr.PC. After completion of the trial and hearing the argument put forward by learned counsel for both sides, judgment is accordingly passed by the learned Trial Court below convicting the accused/petitioner u/s 354 IPC and sentenced him as stated above.

6. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment & order passed by the learned JMFC dated 19.11.2014 the present accused/petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. But, the appeal is also accordingly dismissed upholding the order passed by the learned Trial Court below.

7. It is submitted by Mr. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner that while filing the FIR, the only allegation brought against the accused/petitioner is that he touched her chest and thus outraged her modesty. But, she made much improvement at the time of her deposition and at the time of recording her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC wherein she brought the allegation that he touched her belly first and then he touched her left breast and squeezed. Then she resisted and thereafter the accused again inserted his hands under her blouse and sweater and touched her breast. She was angry and immediately came out of the X-Ray room with her mother-in-law and also asked the accused as to why he committed such offence. Further the PW-2 also corroborated the case of the informant. But, her evidence also was not scrutinised by the learned Court below at the time of passing the order. The Court did not consider the evidence of PW-3 who was an independent witness and who did not made elaborate statement as to how the accused/petitioner had misbehaved the victim and she deposed that the victim reported before her that she was misbehaved by the accused/petitioner. Further, he submitted that there is no medical document and the victim was never produced befo