A conviction for sexual assault can be sustained on the solitary credible testimony of the victim. Minor discrepancies do not invalidate reliable statements, and an accused's failure to rebut incriminating material during examination mandates that the court may draw adverse inferences.

JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. PP for the State. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2 (informant), who is also the elder sister of the appellant.

2. This appeal is against the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 376(c) of the IPC by the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Dibrugarh, in POCSO Case No. 17/2023, vide order dated 04.02.2023.

3. In view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, 2012, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo 20 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month under Section 6 of the , 2012.

3.1 The appeal has been filed by the appellant (stepfather of the victim girl), who was found to be 14 years at the time she was raped by her step-father.

4. The counsel for the appellant submits that the challenge made to the conviction of the appellant by the learned Trial Court, is on the ground that the age of the victim was beyond 18 years at the time of the alleged crime. As such, the POCSO Act, 2012 is not attracted to this case. He submits that the learned Trial Court has not proved the age of the victim at the time of the alleged rape of the victim. He also submits that there is no DNA profiling/test report, proving that the child born from the victim was fathered by the appellant. Further, the victim being partially blind, she could not have identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. He also submits that no effective Legal Aid had been provided to the appellant during trial proceedings, inasmuch as, necessary questions that were required to be put to the Prosecution Witnesses during trial, had not been put to the Prosecution Witnesses during cross-examination by the counsel for the appellant.

5. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. PP submits that no challenge had been made by the appellant with regard to the age of the victim at any time during the trial proceedings. She also submits that though DNA test report had not been produced by the Prosecution during the trial, the evidence adduced by the victim and the Doctor proved that the appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim, which attracted Section 4 (2) of the POCSO Act, 2012. She also submits that the evidence adduced by the victim showed that the victim had identified the appellant as the one who had raped her. The learned Addl. PP also submits that effective Legal Aid had been provided to the appellant during trial. The learned Addl. PP thus prays that the impugned judgment should be upheld.

6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. The prosecution story is that the informant (PW-3), who is the elder sister of the appellant, submitted an FIR dated 19.06.2019 to the Officer-in- Charge of the Chabua Police Station, stating that the appellant had married a woman, who had a 14-year-old daughter (victim). The appellant established physical relationship with the victim, as a result of which she got pregnant. The residents of Dowania Pother of South Balijan Tea Estate having come to know about the incident, the appellant, his wife and the victim ran away from their residence. The appellant and his wife left the victim in the house of the appellant's uncle, i.e., the appellant's auntie's husband. On 19.06.2019 at 6 am, the appellant's uncle and grandm