The sole testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases can sustain a conviction if credible, without the necessity for corroboration.

JUDGMENT

By Court:

Heard the parties.

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 15.09.2017 and order of sentence dated 16.09.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in G.R. (POCSO) Case No. 54 of 2015, whereby the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(i) and 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC and has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 363 of IPC and two years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 379 of IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there is no independent witness to support the prosecution case. As per the prosecution case, at the time of occurrence the victim had accompanied one Jema Soy but said Jema Soy has been declared hostile. As per the prosecution case, one Motu Biruli was also present with Jema Soy but the prosecution has not produced said Motu Biruli as a witness. He submits that non production of these two persons as witness is a fatal blow to the prosecution case. He also submits that there is an allegation of commission of rape upon the victim by this appellant but surprisingly the doctor did not found any mark of assault on the body of the victim. He lastly submits that there was dispute between the family for which this appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.

3. Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned counsel for the State, has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the victim has supported the prosecution case. Her statement is consistent. After the occurrence had taken place, the victim was examined by the doctor and the doctor found that sexual intercourse had taken place. He further submits that the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded and the said statement was exhibited which corroborates the testimony of PW1. He lastly submits that it is not the quantity of the witness rather the quality of the witness which matters and there is nothing to suggest that there was an enmity between the parties for which the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.

4. After hearing the parties, we have gone through the judgment, documents and exhibits.

5. The FIR is at the instance of the victim-P.W1. She states that she and one Jema Soy had gone to attend the natural call when one Motu Biruli came and met Jema and they started talking. Motu Biruli gave his mobile to the victim who sat and played with the mobile phone. Suddenly, this appellant chased the victim and caught hold of her and took her near the well and forcibly committed rape upon her.

6. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Sadar Muffasil P.S. Case No. 143 of 2015 was registered under Sections 376(2)(i) and 379 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 of POCSO Act. Police after investigation filed charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 376(2)(i) and 379 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 of POCSO Act and he was put on trial.

7. After the charge was framed, the prosecution, in order to prove the case has examined 7 witnesses. Relevant documents were also exhibited. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. Defence is of innocence.

8. Trial Court found the appellant to be guilty for offence Sections 363, 376(2)(i) and 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC, five years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 363 of IPC and two years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 379 of IPC.

9. We have gone through the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution. PW-6