The judgment established the importance of corroboration in cases under the POCSO Act, 2012 and emphasized the need for cogent evidence to prove the age of the victim.

JUDGMENT :

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1. The present Appeal by the State raises two important issues relating to a criminal prosecution under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act, 2012). The first issue raised is regarding the quality of the victim’s testimony. The second is regarding the quality of proof required to determine the age of a victim.

2. The State is aggrieved by the acquittal of the Respondents in a Sessions Trial Case against them. The first and the second Respondents were indicted for commission of gang penetrative sexual assault and penetrative sexual assault thereby making the victim (P.W.1) pregnant both amounting to aggravated penetrative sexual assaults under Section 5(g)/5(j)(ii) as well as for committing penetrative sexual assault under Section 3(a) of the (POCSO Act, 2012). In addition they also faced indictments for rape, criminal intimidation and wrongful confinement under Section 376-D/506/342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, 1860). The third Respondent was charged for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(g) and for committing penetrative sexual assault as defined in Section 3(b) of the POCSO Act, 2012. In addition the third Respondent was also indicted for abetting the commission of rape, criminal intimidation and wrongful confinement under Section 109/376-D/506/342 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860.

3. Mr. Karma Thinlay Namgyal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-Appellant, during the hearing, with regard to the first issue, submitted that the testimony of a victim of sexual offence is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitated looking for corroboration, the Court should act on the testimony of the victim of the sexual assault alone to convict the Respondent. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in re: Acharaparambath Pradeepan v. State of Kerala, (2006) 13 SCC 643 and contended that a child witness undisputedly is competent to testify if he understands the question put to him and gives rational answers. With reference to the second issue he submitted that the learned Special Judge ought to have considered the birth certificate of the victim produced and exhibited by the prosecution to establish the minority of the victim. He hinged his case upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in re: Murugan alias Sattu v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 6 SCC 111 and submitted that the prosecution could have relied upon the birth certificate to ascertain the age of the victim. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in re: Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa, AIR 1963 SC 1633 he further submitted that further proof of public document is not necessary.

4. Per contra Mr. Manish Kumar Jain, learned Advocate for the Respondents submitted that the impugned judgment dated 27.02.2018 was a reasoned judgment of acquittal based on scientific evidence confirming the innocence of the Respondents and thus call for no interference. He also submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove the minority of the victim as well. He relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in re: Sancha Hang Limboo v. State of Sikkim, SLR (2018) Sikkim 1 and contended that admissibility of a document is one thing, while proof of its contents is an altogether different aspect.

5. We have been taken through the evidence produced during the trial. We have examined the same in great detail.

6. The prosecution case, briefly, was that the victim born to casual labourers on 10.02.2000 hailed from a poor scheduled caste family. The family lived in very poor economic condition. They did not even have television at home. Therefore, the victim used to frequently visit the second and third Respondent’s house to watch television. Four/five months before the receipt of the First Information Report (FIR) (exhibit-8) the victim had gone to their house to watch television. While doing so the second Responden