The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of corroborative evidence, particularly DNA evidence, in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused in sexual assault cases involving minors.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused/convict (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") challenging the judgment dated 02.11.2016, passed by the learned Special Judge, Bialspur, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 20/7 of 2015, whereby he was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and under sections 4 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "POCSO Act").

2. The factual matrix of the case, as per the prosecution story, are that on 12.08.2015, around 03:30 p.m., when the prosecutrix, a minor girl (name withheld), was returning from school, in Chowgan area, near village Panol, the accused pounced upon her, dragged her to fields, broke the string of her salwar and started inserting his fingers into her vagina, thus in this manner the accused committed rape upon the prosecutrix by penetrative sexual assault. The accused also threatened the prosecutrix that he will eliminate her in case she divulges the incident to anyone. It has further come in the prosecution story that on 17.08.2015, around 06:30 a.m., when the prosecutrix was sleeping in her house, the accused pressed her breasts, thus he committed sexual assault upon the prosecutrix. The father of the prosecutrix, by medium of a complaint, reported the matter to the police, whereupon police registered an FIR against the accused under Sections 376, 506(ii) IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act. The investigation ensued and the police took into possession ''salwar'' of the prosecutrix, which was sealed in a parcel having seal impression ''M''. The statement of the prosecutrix, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 was recorded before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin. The prosecutrix was medically examined and her medico legal certificate was obtained. The record qua date of birth of the prosecutrix was also obtained from Government High School, Bhager. The spot of occurrence, i.e., where the accused dragged the prosecutrix, was photographed. The case property was sent for Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Mandi, for chemical analysis and report therefrom was obtained. The medical examination of the accused and his medico legal certificate was also procured by the police. Site plans of the spot of occurrences were prepared and the statements of the witnesses, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 were also recorded. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.

3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as fourteen witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. The accused while replying to Question No. 21 stated as under:

"A:21. Do you want to say anything else?

Ans. Path leading to the house of the prosecutrix goes from the court yard of my house. Shri Ramesh chand used to visit the house of the prosecutrix during odd hours. Since Shri Ramesh Chand used to pass through my court yard during odd hours, I objected to it. He threatened to teach me a lesson in future and got involved me in this false case after joining hands with the complainant party. I am innocent.

In defence, the accused did not examine any witness.

4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 02.11.2016, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 506(ii) IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as under: