The prosecution must provide substantial proof in sexual assault cases; the absence of medical evidence undermines the victim's testimony without corroboration.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - (i). The Appellant, aged about 40 years, was accused of having committed the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault, as defined under Section 5 (m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act'), on the victim, aged about 10 years. Exhibit 2, the FIR, came to be lodged on 12-10-2019 by P.W.2, the victim's mother, alleging therein that on 05-10-2019, at around 3 p.m., she had gone to wash utensils, at a nearby water source, close to the house of the Appellant, having left her daughter the victim (P.W.1) alone at home. When she returned home after her chore and entered the house, suddenly she heard her child scream. Hurriedly she entered the room where she saw the Appellant committing penetrative sexual assault on the victim, mortified, she reprimanded the Appellant.

(ii) The concerned Police Station registered the FIR on the same day against the Appellant under Section 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short 'IPC') read with Sections 6 /10 of the POCSO Act. During investigation, the victim's statement under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') were recorded and she was medically examined by the Doctor, P.W.13. On completion of investigation, Charge-Sheet was submitted against the Appellant under Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act. The Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) framed Charge against the Appellant under Section 5 (m) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Appellant pleaded 'not guilty' to the Charge. Trial accordingly commenced wherein fifteen Prosecution witnesses were examined to establish its case. On closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to enable him to explain the evidence incriminating him. The Learned Trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record convicted the Appellant of the offence under Section 5 (m) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 by the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence, both dated 11- 11-2020, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 40 years and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only, with a default clause of imprisonment of 5 years.

2. Aggrieved thereof this Appeal has been filed assailing both the conviction and the sentence supra. In Appeal, it is contended by Learned Counsel for the Appellant that Exhibit 2, FIR was lodged belatedly on 12-10-2019, the incident allegedly having taken place on 05-10-2019, but the delay is unexplained. That, in Exhibit 1, the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim, she has enumerated the persons who are her family members leading to an assumption that her younger sister was also present in the house when the incident occurred hence she was not left alone as alleged by P.W.2. That, the Investigating Officer (I.O.), P.W.15 in his evidence has admitted that the vaginal swab of the victim and the penile swab of the Appellant were sent for chemical analysis to RFSL Saramsa, however neither the document nor the examiner were before the Court. The I.O. admitted that no bodily fluids, blood or semen could be detected on the items forwarded to the FSL, which thereby negatives the Prosecution case. The evidence of P.W.2 the victim's mother does not corroborate that of P.W.3 who followed her into the room where the alleged incident took place nor does the evidence of P.W.4 the victim's wife,