In POCSO cases, the victim's testimony is primary and sufficient for conviction if found credible, and procedural discrepancies in DNA samples do not invalidate the findings if the investigation remains unrebutted, nor does a delay in complaint-lodging vitiate the prosecution due to the inherent nature of such crimes.

JUDGMENT :

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by the Mahila Court, Pudukottai, in Special Sessions Case No. 48 of 2022 dated 23.11.2023, convicting the appellant for offence under Section 6(1) of the POCSO (Amendment) Act 2019 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl, who was aged about 15 years was studying 9^th standard in a Government Higher Secondary School. The appellant was residing along with his family nearby and he is a distant relative to the victim girl. In the month of February 2021, the appellant, knowing the fact that the victim girl was alone at her house, entered the house in an inebriated state and forcibly committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. He once again indulged in similar acts during the months of July and August 2022. The victim girl suffered stomach ache and informed about the same to her mother and when the victim girl was taken to the private nursing home, the Doctor who examined the victim girl found that the victim girl was pregnant. It is only then the truth came out and PW3, who is the Doctor who examined the victim girl, gave information to the District Child Protection Unit. In the meantime, the victim girl delivered a female child on 18.04.2022 at about 3.40 a.m. The discharge summary was issued by PW3 which was marked as Ex.P5.

3. The victim girl and the child were handed over to PW1 and PW1 gave a complaint (Ex.P1) to PW7 on 21.04.2022 at 19.00 hours, based on which an FIR came to be registered in Crime No. 11 of 2022 for offences under Section 5(l), 5(j)(ii), read with Section 6(1) of the POCSO (Amendment) Act, 2019. PW7 prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P7) and the rough sketch (Ex.P10) and examined the statement of the victim girl and other witnesses. The appellant was arrested on 22.04.2022 at about 10.00 a.m. and was produced before the concerned court and he was remanded to judicial custody.

4. The victim girl was subjected to medical examination on 24.05.2022 and the victim girl was produced before the concerned Court and her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded(Ex.P3). Thereafter, PW4, who is the Headmaster of the Government Higher Secondary School, gave the certificate (Ex.P6) by mentioning the date of birth of the victim girl as 08.10.2007. On 12.07.2022, PW7 took steps to collect the samples from the victim girl, the child and the accused person in order to conduct DNA test and made a requisition to the concerned Court to send the samples for DNA analysis.

5. PW7 after recording the statements of all the witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. and after collecting the relevant report (Ex.P12) filed the police report before the Special Court.

6. The trial court framed charges for offences under Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), read with Section 6(1) of the POCSO (Amendment) Act, 2019. When the accused was questioned on the charges, he denied the same.

7. The prosecution examined PW 1 to PW7 and marked Exs.P1 to P12.

8. The incriminating circumstances and evidence was put to the accused person when he was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and he denied the same as false.

9. The accused person did not examine any witnesses nor mark any documents.

10. The trial court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecu