The credibility of the victim's testimony, the need for corroboration, and the influence of the victim's mother on her testimony were the central legal points established in the judgment.

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. Assailing the Judgment and Order on Sentence, both dated 19-04-2017, of the Court of the Learned Special Judge (POCSO), North Sikkim, at Mangan, in Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case No.01 of 2016, the instant Appeal has been preferred. The Appellant was convicted under Sections 9(l), 9(m) and 9(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”) and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only, under each of the above offences with a default stipulation each. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, duly setting off the period of imprisonment already undergone by the convict as an under-trial prisoner.

2. Claiming an acquittal for the Appellant, it was put forth by his Counsel that the evidence of the victim, P.W.3, is not creditworthy as her testimony given before the Learned Special Judge (POCSO), North Sikkim, at Mangan, bore substantial exaggerations from her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) recorded by the Magistrate. Her evidence lacked corroboration and being a child witness she was susceptible to influence from her mother, therefore, her evidence ought to have been evaluated carefully. Emphasising this point the attention of this Court was drawn to the decision in State of U.P. vs. Ashok Dixit and Another, (2000) 3 SCC 70, Darpan Potdarin vs. Emperor, AIR 1938 Patna 153 and Rameshwar S/o Kalyan Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54. That, P.W.4 deposed that she did not want to continue in the marriage with the Appellant thereby indicating a troubled marriage and likelihood that she had tutored the victim. Three other children of the Appellant and P.W.4 living along with them were not listed as witnesses to the instant case sans reasons, leading to an adverse inference against the Prosecution. Admittedly, the family shared a single room, but P.W.4 never witnessed a single sexual assault by the Appellant on P.W.3, leading to a high degree of improbability of the offence having been committed. The Medical Report of the victim fails to support the Prosecution case of sexual assault. That, the Learned Trial Court ought to have ignored the evidence of the minor victim living as she was admittedly with a police personnel at the relevant time thereby raising the degree of the probability of her being tutored by the Police. Hence, in view of the grounds put forth, the Appellant be acquitted. Strength was drawn from the ratio of Narain and Others vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 484, Panchhi and Others vs. State of U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177 and Rajoo and Others vs. State of M.P., AIR 2009 SC 858.

3. Repelling the arguments of the Appellant, Mr. Karma Thinlay Namgyal, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would contend that the evidence of the victim establishes with clarity the commission of the sexual assault on her, duly corroborated by the evidence of her mother P.W.4 as well as P.W.1 and P.W.5, the Complainants, who were told of the incident by P.W.3, who had also previously narrated the incident to P.W.4. That, it is now well-established that the evidence of a victim of sexual assault requires no corroboration if the evidence given by her is cogent and consistent. That, in the instant matter, the evidence given by the victim has been consistent despite her age and in her cross-examination she did not vacillate. Besides, Section 29 of the POCSO Act clearly lays down that when the victim makes an allegation of sexual assault the Court shall presume that such an incident has indeed taken place. As the conviction meted out to the Appellant is based on the evidence on record, the Appeal be dismissed. To buttress his submissions, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Robin Gurung vs. State of Sikkim, MANU/SI/0048/2017 : 2017