The victim's testimony alone can suffice for conviction in rape cases, as corroboration is not mandatory if the testimony is credible.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J: This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.01.2014 and order of sentence dated 23.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III-cum-FTC (CAW), Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.707 of 2013, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376(2) (i) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.2000/-.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Trial Court has not appreciated the oral evidence properly which led to the conviction of this appellant. In fact, none of the witnesses are the eye witness of the said occurrence and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Even the mother of the victim is not an eye witness. He further stated that the other witnesses are the hearsay. He also stated that the Investigating Officer has not properly investigated this case and wearing apparels were not sent for FSL Examination. As per him the statement of the child cannot be believed as there are discrepancies in her evidence. From the evidences, it is apparent that the house of the appellant was locked from outside, thus there was no occasion that this appellant would be present inside the house. He lastly stated that all the circumstances, which surfaced during the evidence were not put to the appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., thus the conviction of this appellant is bad, which needs to be set aside.

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the witnesses have clearly stated that the girl was recovered from the house of this appellant and on hearing the cry of the victim girl from the house of this appellant, the people of the village went to his house and recovered the girl. The statement of the girl clearly establishes the fact of sexual assault, which is also corroborated by the medical evidence, thus this appeal needs to be dismissed.

4. Prosecution case as per the written report of one Munna Kachhap is that on 25.4.2013 at 3:00 p.m his youngest daughter- the victim had come to house from Ursuline Convent School and his wife informed him that all the children had gone outside at 4:30 p.m for playing and all the children returned home till 5:30 p.m but her youngest daughter (victim) did not return. On query from other children, she came to know that Samu Sanga @ Kariyappa (appellant) has taken away her to a shop for giving her kurkure (packed snacks). Thereafter they searched her but she was not traced till 7:30 p.m. Then they went to the house of Kariyappa and found that his house was locked from outside but after sometime they heard cry of their daughter. On hearing the cry, people of the locality also rushed to the place of occurrence and his wife also reached there. They found that the appellant was inside the house along with his daughter. The people of the locality broke the lock of the door and saw the girl was undressed. The people of the locality caught the appellant, assaulted him. The informant stated that after alluring the girl by giving kurkure, the accused took her inside his house and tried to commit rape upon her.

On the basis of his written report, Lalpur P.S. Case No. 104 of 2013 was registered under Section 376/511 of IPC.

5. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet under Section 376(2)(F) of the Indian Penal Code, upon which the Court took cognizance and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Court framed charge under Section(s) 376(2)(i) IPC.

6. Prosecution in support of their case has produced twelve witnesses who are as follows:-

P.W.-1 Basanti Kachhap, is the mother of the victim girl, who deposed that the occurrence took place on 25.4.2013 when her daughter, aged about 3 ½ years, returned to her house from school with her father and after taking meal she went outside along with other children for playing. When her daughter did not return till 5:30 p.m., this witness went outside t