The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of a victim of sexual assault does not require corroboration if it is consistent and credible. The court also emphasized the need for strict compliance with the law to prevent the disclosure of the identity of the child victim.

JUDGMENT :

MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J.

1. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order on Sentence, dated 30-09-2016, of the Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), South Sikkim, at Namchi, in Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case No.21 of 2015, State of Sikkim vs. Robin Gurung, the instant Appeal has been preferred.

2. Vide the impugned Judgment, the Appellant was convicted of the offences charged with and sentenced as follows;

(i) for the offence under Sections 5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”), to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand), only.

(ii) for the offence under Section 376(2)(i) and (n) of the IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand), only.

(iii) for the offence dated 29-08-2015, under Section 354B of the IPC,, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand), only.

(iv) for the offence dated 01-09-2015, under Section 354B of the IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand), only.

All the sentences of fine bore a default stipulation, while the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently, duly setting off the period of imprisonment already undergone.

3. The Prosecution case, before the Learned Trial Court was that, P.W.3, uncle of the victim, lodged Exhibit 5, a First Information Report (FIR), before the Jorethang Police Station, South Sikkim, on 30-09-2015, at 2200 hours, informing therein that the victim, P.W.1, had been sexually assaulted by one Robin Gurung, resident of Chisopani, South Sikkim, on 29-08-2015 and the incident was brought to his notice on 30-09-2015, giving rise to Exhibit 5.

4. The FIR was registered as JPS Case FIR No.54/2015, under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, against the said accused and investigation taken up, during the course of which, the victim was medically examined at the Jorethang Public Health Clinic with the consent of her guardian and later her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (for short “Cr.P.C.”). The accused was arrested on 30-09-2015.

5. It transpired that the accused/Appellant (hereinafter “Appellant”) aged about 20 years and the victim, a minor aged about 13 years, a student of 5th standard in a School, in West Sikkim, were in a relationship, for the past nine months. On 28-09-2015, the victim fell ill in her School complaining of nausea. The School Authorities suspected foul play, but as no revelation was forthcoming from the victim about any untoward incident, she was handed over to her legal guardian for further enquiry, upon which she revealed to P.W.5, that she had been sexually assaulted by the Appellant, in the jungle of Lambutar, Jorethang, on 29-08-2015 and 01-09-2015. Efforts were made by P.W.3 to settle the matter with the Appellant, in vain, which led to the delay in lodging the FIR. Accordingly, on completion of investigation, Charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

6. The Learned Trial Court framed Charge against the Appellant under Section 5(l), punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 376(2)(i) and (n) of the IPC and Section 354B of the IPC on two counts, i.e., for the offence on 29-08-2017 and on 01-09-2017.

7. On a plea of “not guilty” by the Appellant, the trial commenced, which concluded with the conviction of the Appellant and the sentence, as detailed hereinabove.

8. Before this Court, it was argued by Learned Counsel for the Appellant that, the investigation and evidence has clearly revealed that both the Appellant and the victim were in a relationship and, therefore, the Appellant cannot be held at ransom for a consensual act. Drawing strength from evidence of P.W.10, the Doctor, who examined the victim, it was urged that the me