The sole testimony of a child victim can form the basis of conviction in sexual assault cases, provided the testimony is credible and consistent, irrespective of corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. V.A Chowdhury, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B Bhuyan, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam and Ms. S Sarma, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The present appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred against the judgment and order dated 05.07.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, cum Special Judge, POCSO Kamrup (M) in Sessions Case No.401/2018, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused person under section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for another three months.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that an ejahar was lodged by the informant (PW-1) on 28.08.2018 before the O/C, Jalukbari PS, alleging that on 27.08.2018, the accused, Md. Azizul Haque sexually abused her minor daughter aged about 8 years.

4. On receipt of the Ejahar, Jalukbari PS case No.1159/2018 under section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, was registered. During the investigation, the IO visited the place of the occurrence, drew a sketch map of the scene, and recorded statements from the victim and other witnesses. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C as well. The Investigating Officer got the victim medically examined.

5. Upon completion of the investigation, the IO submitted a charge sheet against the accused-appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

6. After receiving the charge sheet, the case was transferred to the learned Special Judge, POCSO. The accused appeared before the learned Special Judge, and the trial court framed charges against the accused appellant under section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and read over and explained the same to the accused person, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial proceeded.

7. During the trial, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses and presented 9 documents. After the closure of the prosecution case, the statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the accused pleaded total denial. The accused also examined defence witness and exhibited documents in support of his case.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials on record, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as recorded hereinabove.

9. Mr. VU Chowdhury, learned counsel for the appellant, argues that the learned Trial court failed to note the serious contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. According to Mr. Chowdhury, in the version of the informant mother (PW-1) in the FIR, she did not mention that she was informed about the incident by the victim girl herself, but while deposing before the court, the informant stated that the whole incident was narrated to her by the victim girl. According to him, the version in the FIR and the evidence of PW-1 are different.

10. The learned counsel further contends that the only eyewitness (PW-3) apart from the victim was declared hostile by the prosecution.