The court emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases, particularly when the victim's testimony is inconsistent.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant herein is the sole accused deprived of the judgment of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under Protection of Children From the Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur,

2. On the complaint given by one Gurusamy, the paternal uncle of the minor girl, aged about 13 years, the respondent police registered the FIR in Crime No.7 of 2016, against the appellant for offence under Sections 450 , 366(A), 376 , 506(i) IPC and 5(i)(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, on 31.03.2016.

3. The complaint marked as Ex.P.1 was a disclosure of cognizable offence committed by the appellant in the nature of repeated penetrative sexual assault on the victim child.

4. According to the complainant, the minor child is his brother's daughter. After the demise of her parents, she had been under the care and custody of her paternal uncle. The appellant, who is residing near his house, had befriended the child and been continuously abusing her sexually. When he noticed that the victim child is not concentrating in her studies, he enquired her and then found out that she had been sexually abused by the appellant and been subjecting her to sexual intercourse. While so, P.W.1 asked the victim child to put in writing about what happened to her. Her written statement disclosed that the latest sexual assault was on 30.03.2016, when the appellant went to the school of the victim child at about 11.00 a.m and when the victim child came out from the class room to attend her nature's call, he took her to the gents toilet and forcibly had sexual intercourse.

5. Thereafter, P.W.1 along with the written statement of the minor child went to the respondent police and gave the complaint which was received by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sattur All Women Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

6. P.W.17-the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation of the case registered by P.W.16-the Sub-Inspector of Police. Went to the scene of crime and prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch. Recorded the statement of the witnesses and sent the victim child for medical examination. Her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate and marked as Ex.P.11. Thereafter, P.W.17 arrested the appellant on 02.04.2016 and remanded him to judicial custody.

7. The Sessions Court, based o the records furnished along with the final report, framed charges under Section 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act, 2012, Section 366(A) of IPC and Section 5(l)(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, Section 11(iv) r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 506(i) IPC .

8. P.W.1-the de-facto complainant had spoken about the complaint given to the police after coming to know that the appellant had been continuously subjecting the minor child with sexual assault and about the incident which alleged to have been happened on 30.03.2016 at 11.00 a.m., in the school toilet. His complaint and the hand written statement of the victim child, annexed to the complaint is marked as Ex.P.1.

9. P.W.2- the victim child, in the chief examination, had deposed about the act of aggravated sexual asault and penetrative sexual offence committed on her by the appellant on various occasion and particularly, the incident on 30.03.2016 happened in her school toilet. The written statement marked as Ex.P.1. After about three years, the witness was recalled for cross- examination. In the cross-examination, she turned hostile. She had deposed that she wrote Ex.P.1 on the dictation of P.W.1, when she was under his custody. Now, she is in her aunty's house and free from influence. However, after few months, when she was recalled by the prosecution, she reiterated her statement given before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C as well as in the chief examination recorded on 29.12.2016.

10. P.W.3 is the daughter of P.W.1, she had cowed the line of her father and the chief examination of P.W.2. She had deposed that the victim confided to her that the appellant came to her ho