JUDGMENT

S.K. Panigrahi, J. - The petitioner has filed the instant application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in connection with Nikirai P.S. Case No.103 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.68 of 2020 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kendrapada. The petitioner herein is the accused in connection with alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 506, 354-B read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.08.2020 at about 7:00 P.M., the petitioner caught hold of the hand of the victim (aged about 11 years) while the latter was attending the call of nature. The petitioner dragged her to an under construction house where he inappropriately touched the private parts of the victim. The cousin of the victim witnessed the whole incident and she was threatened by the petitioner of committing a similar misconduct with her if she raises protest. Thereafter the matter was reported to local Sarpanch and on advice of the said Sarpanch, the FIR was lodged by the mother of the victim before the IIC, Nikirai P.S.

3. Heard Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Kanungo, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the case records.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nayak has submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case by the Police. The petitioner has never committed the alleged offences and has no role to play in it. Learned Court below has rejected the bail application of the petitioner without taking into consideration the materials available on record and without applying its judicial mind. Further, the medical examination has been conducted on the victim and the said report reflects no sign of forceful sexual misconduct and the wearing apparels do not suggest any sign of forceful sexual act. Hence, the petitioner should be granted bail.

5. Medical Officer, Dr. Nirmalya Mohapatra, who examined the victim has reported that on examination of genital organ and the clothing of the victim, there were no recent signs or symptoms or bodily injuries suggestive any kind of sexual intercourse. Further, the police official has reported the birth proof from her School stating that the victim was 11 years and 7 months old at the time of examination.

6. It is well settled that the victim of a sexual assault is not an accomplice. Nor is it an immutable rule of law that the testimony of a survivor cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. The injury suffered by the minor victim of a sexual abuse is deeply physical, psychological and emotional. In a given case, if the Court finds it difficult to accept the version of the victim, on its own, the Court would be justified in searching for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which lends assurance to her testimony. Such assurance, short of corroboration, is sufficient. The Bombay High Court in the case of Fazal Mehmud Jilani Dafedar vs State of Masharashtra Criminal Appeal No. 845 of 2017 Bombay HC. relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Imran Khan v. State Government (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192 1 wherein the legal position was postulated as under:

"22. It is a trite law that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust. The prosecutrix stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness as she suffers from emotional injury. Therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called "the Evidence Act"), nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 of the Evidence Act and her evidence must receive the same weight as is att