Credible victim testimony can support conviction, but prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which requires clear evidence not based on conjectures.

JUDGMENT

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - Mr. Jorgay Namka, learned counsel for the appellant, sought to assail the impugned judgment dated 11.10.2021 passed in S.T. (POCSO) Case No. 10 of 2020 convicting the appellant under section 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC) as well as under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) as amended by the POCSO Amendment Act, 2019 on the ground that the victim's statement is not of sterling quality and is not corroborated by other evidence. It is argued that there is no evidence to suggest when and where the alleged offence took place. Mr. Namka submitted that the FIR (exhibit-1) was lodged on 02.05.2020 after recording the statement of the victim's mother who stated that she learnt about the incident in the year 2017 which transpired earlier. The mother of the victim, however, deposed before the court that it was in the year 2016 that the incident took place as informed to her. The victim, however, did not give any date or time of the incident and barely stated that the appellant opened her clothes, fondled her breasts and committed penetrative sexual assault on her in the dairy. She also deposed about having being raped ten times before without giving any further details. The learned counsel took us through the medical records which reflect that since the victim was unable to speak history could not be elicited. He also took us through the depositions of PW-8 - a Social Worker of the District Children Protection Unit (DCPU) and PW-10 - an Outreach Worker under the DCPU. Both the witnesses deposed that the victim was uncommunicative and did not communicate much. However, the same victim is said to have narrated the story before the learned Magistrate as well as in Court. It was further argued that the entire case of the prosecution sans the cryptic deposition of the victim is based on hearsay evidence which is not acceptable. It is argued that the FIR (exhibit-1) is based on a statement of the mother (PW-1) of the victim, according to which, she was informed about the incident by two ladies PW-11 and another who was not examined by the prosecution. PW-11, however, candidly admitted that she did not have any personal knowledge about the incident and did not depose or corroborate the statement of the mother (PW-1) of the victim about the fact that she had informed her of what the victim had disclosed to her.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and submitted that in cases like this where the victim suffers from certain disabilities it is incumbent upon the court to examine the evidence considering the social circumstances of the victim and of the area in which the crime has been committed. The stand of the father (PW-7) of the victim that since they had already settled the matter involving the victim and the appellant many years ago, he did not have anything to say about the incident reflects his indifferent attitude towards the victim who is voiceless in such circumstances. It is submitted that the victim's deposition