The sole testimony of a minor victim, when found consistent and unimpeachable, is sufficient to warrant a conviction as a 'sterling witness' without corroboration, and minor investigative contradictions do not rebut the statutory presumption of guilt in cases of sexual assault against children.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.

1.The instant criminal appeal is filed by the sole accused (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.10.2023 passed in Spl. S.C. No. 42 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment’) by the Court of Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”).

2. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as tabulated below;

3. The Trial Court further recommended that the victim child is entitled to a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- under the Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault, 2018. The Trial Court also noted that out of the compensation awarded, 80% of the amount shall be deposited in the name of the victim child in any one of the nationalised banks till she attains majority and that the remaining 20% amount shall be used for her medical expenses and welfare.

4. The case of the prosecution as culled out from records is as follows:

4.1 The victim child/PW1 was aged 4 years, 11 months and 14 days at the time of commission of the offence and the appellant is the father of the victim child’s friend.

4.2 On 11.08.2020, the appellant found his daughter/PW3 and the victim child/PW1 playing outside their house and took them in his TVS XL Super/M.O.1 and went to the Ayyanar Koil Lake for giving them a bath. While giving the children their bath, the appellant inserted his finger into the vagina of the victim child/PW1. The victim child/PW1 was crying in pain and hence, the appellant who was afraid of being caught, brought back the children and dropped them at their house.

4.3 The overt act of the appellant was disclosed by the appellant’s very own daughter to a neighbour of theirs, viz., Santhi/PW4, who, in turn, informed the victim child’s mother/PW2 (hereinafter referred to as “the de facto complainant’) of the appellant’s overt act.

4.4 Owing to the victim child/PW1 suffering in pain and on the advice of the neighbours, the de facto complainant/PW4 took the victim child/PW1 to the Anikurichaan Primary Health Care Centre. The staff nurse/PW8 at the said Health Care Centre referred the victim child/PW1 to Jayamkondam Government Hospital for treatment. The doctor at Jayamkondam Government Hospital, namely Dr. Divya /PW12 examined the victim child/PW1 and observed in the Accident Register/Ex P9 that the victim child’s hymen was torn horizontally by 2 mm and opined that she might have undergone penetrative sexual assault.

4.5 As a consequence of such observation, Dr. Divya/PW12 informed the AWPS, Jayamkondam, who, in turn, received a complaint, registered a case in Crime No.18/2020/Ex P11 under Section 363, Section 366-A, Section 376-AB of the IPC, 1860 and Section 5(m) r/w. Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

4.6 The Inspector of Police, AWPS Jayamkondam/PW14, on12.08.2020, took up the case for investigation and went to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar/Ex P2 and rough sketch/Ex P12. Thereafter, based on secret information, she arrested the appellant and recorded his voluntary confession statement under Ex.P6 and seized his TVS XL Super/M