The testimony of a minor victim in sexual assault cases can be sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence, regardless of corroborative medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed inter alia challenging the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant by the learned Addl. District Judge & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nuapada vide his judgment dtd.30.11.2018 in S.A. Case No. 101/2017. Vide the impugned judgment the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Sec. 451 of the I.P.C. and in default, further R.I. for one month. The Appellant is also convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default R.I. for 3 months for the offence under Sec. 376(2)(f)(i) of the I.P.C.. The Appellant is also sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default R.I. for 3 months more for the offence under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act. It is however directed that, all the substantive sentences so imposed shall run concurrently and the UTP period be set off.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that prosecution was set into motion with lodging of the F.I.R. by the mother of the victim on 02.11.2017 in Sinapali P.S. Case No. 236 dtd.02.11.2017 for the offence under Sec. 376(2)(f)(i) of the I.P.C. and Sec. 4/6 of the POCSO Act. The F.I.R. story as narrated reads as follows:-

“In the morning of 2.11.2017 both Kanti and Bhikari had gone to their agricultural field to harvest paddy by leaving their minor children including the victim at their residence. Such agricultural field is at a short distance from the house of Kanti and Bhikari. While working in the field around 8 A.M, Kanti Tandi returned to her home to drink water. On entering into his home, she found that the UTP was ravishing her minor victim daughter, who by then was 9 years old. Looking at the presence of the mother of the victim, the UTP- accused fled away. Then on being asked by Kanti, the victim told to her that while the victim was separating the pebbles from the rice, the accused pulled the victim to the house, removed the leggin worn by the victim and ravished her. Kanti then called her husband and narrated the incident.”

2.1. It is contended that after completion of the investigation, final form was submitted against the present Appellant for the offence under Sec. 376(2)(f)(i) of the I.P.C. r.w. Sec. 451 and Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act. The Appellant accordingly was charged and faced the trial for the offence under Sec. 376(2)(f)(i)/451 of the I.P.C. and Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act.

2.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the prosecution in order to establish the case examined as many as 25 nos. of witnesses. While P.W. 12 is the victim, P.W. 11 is the informant/mother of the victim. P.W. 13 is the father of the victim and P.W. 22 is the I.O. of the case. Similarly, P.W. 24 is the concerned Doctor who examined the victim.

2.3. It is contended that in view of evidence of the P.Ws. so recorded, more particularly the evidence of P.W. 12, the mother of the victim-P.W. 11 and P.W. 24 who examined the victim, there was no material to implicate the Appellant for the offence under Sec. 376(2)(f)(i) of the I.P.C. r.w. Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act and Sec. 451 of the I.P.C.

2.4. P.W. 11 in her cross-examination submitted as follows:-

“My family and the family of the accused had gone together to earn our livelihood in Andhrapradesh.

xxx xxx xxx

It is a fact that prior to five years my family had quarreled with the family of the accused as my cow had damaged the crop of the accused.”

2.5. P.W. 24 who examined the victim in his examination-in-chief stated as follows:-

“(ii) No blo