The victim child's testimony and the lack of corroborative medical evidence can be sufficient to establish guilt in cases of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child under the POCSO Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order of conviction imposed as against the appellant by the judgment, dated 14.09.2021 made in Spl.S.C.No.42 of 2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court at Krishnagiri and acquit the appellant from all charges.)

A complaint by post was received at the Kallavi Police Station, on 10.04.2017 from P.W.1, to the effect that, on 04.04.2017 at about 9.30 A.M, when P.W.1’s grandson, namely victim child, aged 4 years was playing near the house, the appellant took him by holding his hand and after some time, the victim child was found lying naked with blood in his ear, mouth and nose and the appellant/accused had committed oral penetration and even though she took up the matter with the other residents of the village, they had directed her to go to the Police Station and therefore, she has lodged the complaint.

2. On the strength of the said allegation, a case in Crime No.44 of 2017 under Section 3(A) read with 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was registered and P.W.14 took up the case for investigation and laid a Final Report, after completion of the investigation, proposing the accused guilty for the offence under Section 5(m)(u) read with 6 of the POCSO Act. The offence was taken cognizance by the Trial Court and after furnishing copies under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and upon perusing the material records of the case, a charge was framed against the accused under Section 5(m)(u) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Upon being questioned, the accused denied the charge and stood trial.

3. So as to prove the charge, the prosecution examined one Rani, the grand-mother of the victim child and the de-facto complainant in this case, as P.W.1. She deposed that since the child did not return home, she went in search of the child and upon hearing of wailing of the child, she found the child in the neighbour’s field and when she ran and enquired her grandson, he told her that the appellant/accused had made him to lie down and by pressing his mouth made his mouth open and inserted his penis inside his mouth. She also saw that her grandson was bleeding in the ears and nose and there was an injury on the cheek because of pinching by the appellant/accused. She took her grandson to a private Doctor. She also went to the house of the appellant/accused and when she confronted his mother, the appellant/accused came and threatened her. Thereafter, she had lodged a complaint.

4. The prosecution examined one Kumaravel, who was the mahazar witness, as P.W.2. He deposed that he accompanied the Police when the Police examined the child and the child took the Police to the place of occurrence and told them that the appellant/accused had oral penetration at the place. The prosecution had examined the victim child as P.W.3. The victim child was examined in detail and the child vividly described about the oral penetration done by the accused and was cross-examined in great detail and the child withstood the very many questions and denied the suggestions that such an act never happened. The child also clarified in the cross-examination that a thorn pricked in his ear, therefore there was bleeding. The prosecution examined one Rangan as P.W.4, who was said to be an independent ocular witness, who had also rushed to the spot upon the request of P.W.1, but, however, he turned hostile. The prosecution examined one Raja as P.W.5, who is the father of the victim child and he spoke about the fact that after being informed, he came to the village and his son once again narrated the entire incident to him. The prosecution examined one Chennakesavan, as P.W.6, who was the brother of P.W.5 and who also spoke about the account given to them by the child. The yet another mahazar witness, namely Chennakrishnan, who was examined as P.W.7, was turned hostile. P.W.8, Dr.Sathishkumar, who examined the child and who gave the certificate