A conviction for sexual assault against a minor may be based solely on the child's credible and consistent testimony. Minor errors in formal charges, such as incorrect incident timing, do not invalidate a trial unless they cause demonstrable prejudice to the accused's defense.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. A. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent and Mr. S. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2] This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (M), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”), in Sessions Case No. 52/2021, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”), and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act”), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 (twenty) years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each; and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for another 6 (six) months each. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3] The brief narration of the prosecution case is that on 06.12.2020, the informant filed an FIR in the Birubari Police Outpost under Paltan Bazar Police Station against the accused/appellant, alleging that at around 7.00 PM, the accused/appellant induced the complainant's son (aged about 5 years) to accompany him by offering him chocolate and later sent him back to his home in an injured condition after committing a sexual offence. As a result, the complainant's son was seriously injured, and blood was coming from the anus.

4] On receipt of the ejahar, the Officer-in-Charge of Paltan Bazar P.S. registered a case bearing Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 981/2020 under Section 377 of the IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted, and the accused/appellant was put to trial.

5] Charges under Section 377 of the IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, were framed by the trial court against the accused/appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6] The prosecution examined 9 (nine) witnesses. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) was recorded. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances and stated that the informant had lodged a false case against him, as she owed him money. Upon hearing the parties, the trial court convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him. Situated thus, the present criminal appeal has been preferred.

7] Mr. A. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the time of the offence has not been accurately mentioned in the charge for which the trial stands vitiated. He further submits that the conviction and sentence being based on the sole testimony of the victim is not sustainable in the backdrop of the reply of the accused/appellant in his 313 Cr.P.C. examination, wherein he has categorically explained that due to the altercation he had with the mother of the victim with regard to a loan she had asked, he has been falsely implicated in the criminal case in hand.

8] Per contra, Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent, submits that the victim having remained consistent as regards the allegation of sexual penetrative assault, no corroboration whatsoever is required. She further submits that the medical evidence, apart from indicating evidence of sexual assault and injuries over the anus of the victim, also indicated abrasion injury on the penis of the accused/appellant. She accordingly submits that the medical evidence also supports the prosecution case, and hence no interference against the impugned conviction is warranted.

9] We have given our prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the material available on reco