The testimony of a sexual assault victim, when consistent and corroborated by evidence in court, holds primary weight. Procedural irregularities, such as the absence of a signature on an initial complaint, do not invalidate a conviction if the veracity of the victim’s version is established during trial.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. The judgment dated 25.01.2024 in S.C.No.644/2017 on the files of the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (`POCSO Act' for short) is under challenge in this appeal filed at the instance of the sole accused.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the judgment and records available.

3. In this case, the Special Court framed charge against the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Section 5(m) r/w 6 of thePOCSO Actand also 376(2)(1) of theIndian Penal Code(`IPC' for short). The prosecution allegation is that during the month of April-May, 2017, ie. School summer vacation, the accused took the minor victim aged 11 years by offering toffy, to the hall of his house bearing No.6/99 at Padinjarekkad and laid her on the cot in the said hall; disrobed her and put his penis into the vagina of the victim and thus committed aggravated sexual assault on the victim.

4. The Special Court proceeded with trial. PW1 to PW19 were examined and Exts.P1 to P31 and M.O1 to M.O3 were marked on the side of the prosecution. No defense evidence was adduced. On appreciation of evidence the learned Special Judge found that the appellant/accused committed the offences punishable under Section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act as well as 376(2)(9) of IPC and accordingly he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. No separate sentence was imposed for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(9) of in view of Section 42 of .

5. Mufti-fold contentions were raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who put up an argument note also to unsustain the verdict. According to the learned counsel for the accused, Ext.P8 FIS is not genuine one, neither PW13 victim or PW2 Jyothi, the mother of the victim did not sign Ext.P8 FIS. PW15 Prathapan, the then S.I of Valayar Police Station deposed that he had recorded the statement of the victim as per a letter issued by CW17 Devi. He also pointed out an anomaly that according to PW13, the victim, she had disclosed the occurrence to the Anganwadi teacher. But PW18 Cija George deposed that counselling was conducted to the victim as informed by Anganwadi worker and she got information through telephone and it was on the previous day of 10.07.2017.

6. It is also pointed out that in the instant case, absence of foundation of evidence and subsequent attempt to build up a case against the accused could be visible. Further the prosecution failed to prove the exact place of occurrence and according to PW13, the place of occurrence was the bed room of building No.6/99 but in the police charge the same is described as a tiled house having front portion roofed with sheet. Another contention is that no age determination was conducted to prove the age of the victim, PW10 and PW11 CPO did not mention the age of the victim. At the same time, it was deposed by the mother of the victim that her daughter was born at the District Hospital in Coimbatore. The birth certificate was produced before the police. According to the mother, the date of birth of the victim is on 01.06.2006. PW17, the Investigating Officer stated that even though PW12 Jyothi disclosed the age of the victim, then her statement was recorded, he did not demand any document to prove the age of the victim. He also deposed that the birth certificate of the victim was given by PW12 but since the same was in Tamil the same was not produced before the court. It is argued that the reason for the delay in lodging the FIS is not at all explained. Further non-compliance to Section 19 of the POC