The court affirmed that the sole testimony of a victim can suffice for conviction in sexual assault cases if deemed credible, despite medical evidence limitations.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 28.02.2017 and order of sentence dated 01.03.2017 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Latehar in POCSO Case No. 03/2015, whereby and whereunder, the appellant having been found guilty of charge under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.3,000/-.

2. Challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the medical report does not suggest that any sexual assault has been committed upon the victim girl. He further submitted that there is delay of seven days in lodging the First Information Report, without any explanation. He also submitted that P.W. 1, who is none but the grand-mother of the victim girl, has been declared hostile. He further submitted that while deposing, the victim girl has stated that she could not identify the person, who had entered her room. It has been further submitted that as per the prosecution the occurrence had taken place on 6.2.2015, thereafter the victim was given medical treatment, but no document/paper of such treatment was produced by the prosecution nor the doctor, who had treated the victim was produced as a witness, which suggests that the entire allegation is false. He lastly submits that the punishment of life is too harsh, which needs to be reduced.

3. Counsel for the State submitted that the victim girl has supported the prosecution version of sexual assault upon her so did the mother, who is P.W.3, the eye witness of the said occurrence. She further contended that the Forensic Science Laboratory Report also suggests that the victim girl sustained injury on her private part as bleeding was found in her undergarments. So far as delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, it has been submitted that the said delay has been well explained as the victim was subjected to some treatment. As per the prosecution, non- production of the doctor as a witness, who had treated the victim during intervening period, is not fatal. It has also been submitted that no ground has been put forth by the defence to suggest as to why he has been falsely implicated in this case.

4. The FIR is at the instance of the mother of the victim (P.W.3) who stated that leaving her daughter and mother-in-law, she went to bring back her goats, when she heard cry of her daughter, who was aged about 6 years (the victim) at the time of occurrence. She rushed and found that this appellant holding her daughter on the ground had penetrated his finger in her private part. On seeing the victim, the appellant fled away. The informant saw that blood was oozing out from private part of the victim and she remained under pain. She further narrated that the people residing nearby gathered. Since they are very poor, they could not mange enough money for treatment, thus the family members of the victim took her for local treatment. She was not fully cured, she was later on taken to Balumath Hospital on 11.2.2015.

The family members of the appellant started threatening the informant, thus on 13.2.2015, FIR being Herhanj P.S. Case No. 07 of 2015 was registered.

5. After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet and accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, charges were framed against him for the aforesaid sections.

6. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution had examined altogether seven witnesses, who are as follows:-

P.W.1- Ugni Devi,

P.W.2- The victim,

P.W.3- Dhanmatia Devi (the mother and the informant),

P.W.4- Arvind Ram

P.W.5- Santu Kumar,

P.W.6- Sanoj Kumar Chaudhary (the I.O. of this case).

P.W.7- Dr. Dharam Shila Chaudhary.

7. The Trial Court thereafter considering the evidences had convicted th