The court affirmed that the victim's consistent testimony suffices for conviction in sexual assault cases, reinforcing that age determination and credibility of the witness are pivotal in such judgments.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. D. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 and Ms. D. Ghosh, learned legal aid counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2] The present appeal is directed against the judgment & order dated 18.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), Morigaon, (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”), in POCSO Case No. 79/2021, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (3)/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “ IPC ”), read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act”), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 (twenty) years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, and in default of payment of the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further 6 (six) months.

3] The brief case of the prosecution is that on 15.05.2021, PW-1 lodged an F.I.R., inter alia, alleging that on 14.05.2021, the accused/appellant had enticed his 14-year- old daughter, i.e., the victim, and took her to Bilampur Rubber Garden, where he raped the victim and had also torn her clothes and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the same to any of her family members. Accordingly, an F.I.R. being Jagiroad P.S. Case No. 300/2021 was registered under Section 376 (3)/506 of the IPC , read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the accused/appellant. Being entrusted with the investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused person, visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the victim girl under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) and before the jurisdictional magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and also got her medically examined at Morigaon Civil Hospital. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/appellant under the aforesaid sections.

4] Thereafter, the case being taken up for trial by the learned trial court, charges under Section 376 (3)/506 of the IPC , read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the accused/appellant were framed, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand trial. During the trial, 8 (eight) witnesses were examined as prosecution witnesses, including the victim, the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer.

Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, all the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the allegations and explained that in the month of March, 2021, the informant had tried to construct his grocery shop on the land of his maternal uncle, and upon the son of his late maternal uncle not allowing the informant to do so, he entered into a quarrel with him and also threatened to institute a criminal case and take revenge, and hence, by depicting a fake incident, the instant FIR has been filed whereby the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated. In support of his defence, the accused/appellant adduced 4 (four) witnesses as defence witnesses.

5] Upon consideration and appreciation of the evidence, the trial court was pleased to convict the accused/appellant under the aforesaid charged sections and sentenced him thereof.

6] Mr. D. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the prosecution having not produced the school certificate recording the birth of the victim, the age of the victim is not proved in accordance with Section 94(2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “JJ Act, 2015”). He further submits that there are gross infirmities and inconsistencies amongst the evidence of the different prosecution witnesses. He further submits that the victim