Sexual assault against a minor requires corroborative evidence, but delay in reporting may not negate guilt if adequately explained, as seen in this case.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. RAMESH, J.

1. The charge against the appellant/accused is that on 06.03.2018 at about 08.30 P.M., he had sexually assaulted a 4½ years child by inserting his finger into her vagina and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act'). Subsequently, on 07.03.2018, when the child's mother had questioned the accused, he threatened her stating that if she gives any police complaint, he would kill her husband and therefore, he was also charged of having committed the offence under Section 5 06(i) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC). The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore, on the strength of oral and documentary evidences before it, had found the accused guilty of having committed the offences and thereby convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and to pay a fine of Rs.55,000/-, in default of payment to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, as well as to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 5 06(i) IPC, through its judgment passed in Special Calender Case No.35 of 2019 dated 30.03.2021. The judgment of the Trial Court is assailed in the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the appeal are addressed according to their ranks in the trial Court.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused is a Tailor by profession and that the victim is the adopted child of P.W.1 and P.W.3. On 06.03.2018, when the victim child was playing in her neighbour Ayya @ Pattappan's house, the accused had come there and committed sexual assault by inserting his finger into her vagina. Thereafter, the child had come home and informed her mother. When her mother had examined her vagina, she found it to be swollen and red in colour. She then informed her husband when he came home in the night. In continuation of this incident, the next day, when she had questioned the accused, he threatened her that he would kill her husband. Fearing that the accused might cause some harm to them, she had not reported to the Police. She had then taken the child to Roopa Hospital. They had thereafter given a complaint to the Police narrating the occurrence, which was registered in Crime No.9 of 2018 dated 16.03.2018.

4. On completion of the investigation, the respondent police had filed the final report, charging the accused of having committed the offence under Section 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the Act and 506(i) IPC. The Trial Court had furnished the copies of the relevant documents relating to the charges under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and thereafter framed charges under Section 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and 506(i) IPC against the accused.

5. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, 13 witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.13 were examined, 12 documents Exs.P1 to P12 were marked on the prosecution side. The defence had examined 3 witnesses, D.W.1 to D.W.3 and marked 3 documents, Exs.D1 to D3 on their side.

6. To establish the case of the prosecution, the following witnesses were examined:-

6.1. Banumathi (P.W.1) and Sridhar (P.W.3) are the mother and father of the victim child (P.W.2) respectively. As per their statements, the victim child was born on 13.11.2013 and they had legally adopted her when she was three months old. Both of them speak about th