A conviction for sexual assault may rest solely on a victim's testimony if it is inherently credible. However, in the absence of medical evidence and given significant, unexplained reporting delays, the testimony fails the "sterling witness" standard, compelling the court to grant the accused the benefit of doubt.

JUDGMENT :

PRANJAL DAS, J.

1. Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondent and Ms. M.K. Brown, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent no.2/informant.

2. The instant criminal appeal has been referred by the convict appellant, namely, Ramen Tanti against the judgment and order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the Special Judge, Jorhat, in Special Case No. 65/2018, whereby, he has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default of payment of him, imprisonment for 6 months.

3. The prosecution case, which emerged before the learned Trial Court is that on 06.07.2018, the victim herself lodged an FIR alleging that on 4(four) months prior to the date of lodging the FIR, the convict appellant, who was a resident of their line called her to his house on the pretext of washing utensils but he forcefully committed rape on her, taking advantage of the absence of others and that as a result, at the time of lodging the FIR, she was 4(four) months pregnant. She also alleged that the accused threatened her not to disclose the matter to anyone stating that he would kill her if she did so and out of fear, she did not disclose to anyone. She stated that she was 16 years old at the time lodging of the FIR.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Pulibor PS Case No. 197/2018 was registered under Section 376 IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act 2012.

5. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused person under Section 376 IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act 2012 vide Charge Sheet No. 91/2018 dated 30.07.2018.

6. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.09.2018, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat, as the Special Judge POCSO, framed charges against the appellant under Section 376 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The charge being denied led to commencement of the trial, during which the prosecution examined 9(nine) witnesses, including the victim. However, no medical witness was examined. After completion of trial, he was convicted and sentenced as already mentioned and aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.

7. Ms. B. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the convict appellant submits that the whole relationship, if any, was consensual in nature and that despite the alleged incident, she had not informed about the same to the family members and only when her pregnancy was detected by family members, the matter came to light. It is submitted that there was no threat or fear with regard to the prosecutrix to prevent her from disclosing about the incident. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged several months after the incident. It is submitted that the evidence on record would not make it a case of rape as alleged and as held by the learned Trial Court erroneously.

8. With regard to the applicability, if any, of Section 114-A Indian Evidence Act (Section 120 BSA), it is submitted that the presumption, even if it comes, is a rebuttable presumption. It is reiterated and submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no proper co