Prosecution must establish essential elements of charges beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of corroboration lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Ms. B.R.A. Sultana, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel/Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Morigaon (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”) in POCSO Case No. 269/2023 under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”), read with Section 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act”), whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 (twenty) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only), in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

3. The prosecution case, as it unfolds from the F.I.R. lodged by the PW-2, i.e., the father of the victim, is that on 18.07.2023 the accused/appellant had taken his minor daughter/victim, aged about 14 years, to his house situated on the bank of the fishery behind their house by luring her and then committed rape on her in the said house. Accordingly, a case was registered as Jagiroad P.S. Case No. 220/2023 under Section 376 (3) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer, i.e., PW-7, investigated the case wherein he examined the victim, other witnesses, and the accused person and has also seized the school certificate of the victim proving the victim to be a minor, and after sending the victim for medical examination as well as recording her statement by the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., submitted a charge-sheet vide Charge-Sheet No. 179/2023 under the aforesaid sections against the accused/appellant. The trial court thereafter framed charges under Section 376 (3) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and upon explaining the same to the accused/appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand the trial.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) prosecution, witnesses including the victim/PW-1, informant/PW-2, mother/PW-3, Investigating Officer/PW-7, and the Medical Officer/PW-8, who examined the prosecutrix. Upon completion of recording the prosecution evidence, all the incriminating circumstances emerging therefrom were put to the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. examination, wherein the accused/appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. The trial culminated in conviction. Situated thus, the present appeal has been preferred.

5. Ms. B.R.A. Sultana, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant, submits that the medical evidence does not support sexual penetrative assault. The prosecutrix has made materially inconsistent statements at different stages. Her earliest versions before the police and the magistrate do not disclose ingredients of sexual intercourse. She further submits that her deposition before the trial court contains material improvements, and her parents’ evidence also does not corroborate her version.

6. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel/Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, on the other hand, submits that the prosecutrix has clearly described the sexual act in her deposition before the trial court. Hence, conviction can be based on her sole testimony, and absence of medical corroboration is not fatal. In support of her submissions, she relies upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Wahid Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2010) 2 SCC 9 and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishna Master and Ors. /b>., (2010) 12 SCC 324.

7. We have given our prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the contending parties and have perused the material available on record. We have also carefully considered the case laws