Conviction for sexual assault can rely primarily on the victim's credible testimony, particularly in cases involving minors, where medical evidence is not absolute proof of the crime.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26^th April, 2002 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Baripada, Mayurbhanj in Sessions Trial Case No.8/31 of 2002 arising out of G.R. Case No.566 of 2001, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. The present appeal has been pending since 2002. When the matter was called for hearing consistently, none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, on 19.08.2025, this Court requested Ms. Rakhi Mishra, learned counsel, who was present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. She has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record, assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Ms. Mishra.

3. Heard Ms. Rakhi Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 22.06.2001 at about 10.00 A.M., the victim (P.W.1), a minor girl of about 12 years, had gone to Betnoti weekly market along with her mother (P.W.5), P.W.2 and P.W.6 for purchase of certain articles. When they were returning home in the evening, it rained and while they waited, the appellant approached them and offered to give the victim a lift on his bicycle. With the consent of the victim’s mother, the accused took the victim on his bicycle, and allegedly inside Phuljhari jungle at about 8.00 P.M., the appellant forcibly committed sexual assault on her against her will and threatened her not to disclose the matter to anyone.

5. The victim disclosed the incident to her mother about 3 to 4 days later. Thereafter, her father (P.W.3) was informed, who accompanied her to the police station, where she orally reported the matter. The police reduced the oral report into writing, registered the case, and conducted investigation, including seizure of wearing apparels, school admission register, and medical examination of both the victim and the accused. The appellant was thereafter charge-sheeted under Section 376 of I.P.C.

6. The learned trial Court relied mainly on the testimony of the victim corroborated by her parents and other witnesses, and upon the age determination evidence, which showed the victim to be between 13 and 14 years at the time of occurrence. Though the medical evidence did not find signs of recent sexual intercourse, the learned trial Court held that absence of external injuries or semen does not dislodge the consistent testimony of the victim. The court convicted the appellant under Section 376 I.P.C.The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below for ready reference:-

“xxx xxx xxx In the case of State Vrs. Angom Nabi Sing reported in 1963 (2) Crl.L.J. page 715 there was no injury on the private part and no semen was detected in the clothes or private parts. It was held that the same did not prove that there was no rape. In the case of Adam Tirky Vrs. State reported in 1993(1) O.L.R. page 266 it was held by Honourable Court that –

"Absence of semen strains or spermotozoa and absence of injury on private part of the victim are no cons