The court emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases, modifying the conviction from penetrative sexual assault to aggravated sexual assault due to insufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Sunder Mohan, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide judgment dated 29.03.2022 in Spl.S.C.No.77 of 2020, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, POCSO Principal Special Court, Salem.

2(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant and the victim belong to the same village; that the family of the appellant and the victim are known to each other; that on 22.02.2020, the victim aged about eight years, informed her mother [PW1] that she want to play with PW4, the brother-in-law of PW1; that on the same day at about 7.00 p.m., the appellant took the victim to a nearby field and removed the dress of the victim and committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim; that when the victim shouted, the appellant fled from the place; that the victim came home and informed about the occurrence to PW1 and on the complaint of PW1, a case was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 3 r/w 4 of the POCSO Act, in Cr.No.77 of 2020.

(ii) The investigation was conducted by PW13 and a final report was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 5(m) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act before the learned Sessions Judge, POCSO Principal Special Court, Salem, which was taken on file as Special S.C.No.77 of 2020.

(iii) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with and the trial Court framed charges against the accused, and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

(iv) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.13, marked 27 documents as Exs.P1 to P27 and marked three material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. On the side of defence, no oral or documentary evidence was let in.

(v) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and held the appellant/accused guilty of offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and 5(m) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him as follows:

Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the instant appeal.

3. Heard, Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/Accused, and Dr.C.E.Pratap, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent/State.

4. Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the conviction is based on the sole testimony of the victim; that PW3, the father of the victim had deposed that the case was instituted falsely against the appellant; that PW2, the victim had admitted that there were disputes between the two families prior to the occurrence; that all the witnesses turned hostile, except PW1 and PW2; that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the above case; and that in the absence of any corroboration to the evidence of PW2, it would be highly unsafe to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 5(m) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and prayed for acquittal.

5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) per contra submitted that even though the other witnesses had turned hostile, the evidence of PW1 and PW2, is corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor [PW11], who had given the report [Ex.P14] and had noticed a bleeding injury in the privat