The court established that corroborative evidence from victims is essential for conviction and underlined the need for adherence to rights of sexual assault survivors during medical examinations.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment which convicted him of the offence under Sections 376 and 354 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short 'IPC'), in Sessions Trial (POCSO, Act) Case No.04 of 2021, dated 28-08-2021. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten) years under Section 376 of the IPC, with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, and a default clause of imprisonment, vide Order on Sentence dated 31-08-2021. No sentence was imposed upon the convict under Section 354 of the IPC, in view of the provisions of Section 220(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') read with Section 71 of IPC.

2(i). The Prosecution case is founded on Exhibit 9, the FIR dated 06-04-2021, lodged by P.W.9, the District Child Protection Officer (DCPO) of the area concerned, informing therein that the victim P.W.10, Prosecutrix No.1 (hereinafter, 'P.W.10') on 05-04- 2021, during counselling, revealed that in the year 2019 at the time of her cousin's death, the Appellant committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her and her cousin P.W.1, Prosecutrix No.2 (hereinafter, 'P.W.1') in his room, at their residence. Between the period January, 2021 up to 30th March, 2021, another person also sexually assaulted her by touching her private part, kissing her and threatening her with dire consequences if she reported the assault. FIR was registered against the Appellant and the second assailant, Pema Tshering Bhutia.

(ii) In the instant matter, we are dealing only with the allegation against the Appellant, the Appeal having been filed by him.

(iii) Investigation revealed a prima facie case against the Appellant under Section 376 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act') for having committed the offences against the minor victims P.W.10 and P.W.1. Charge-Sheet came to be submitted accordingly. The Learned Trial Court framed Charge against the Appellant under Section 5(m) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and under Section 376 read with Section 354 of the IPC. The Prosecution examined 21 (twenty one) witnesses on the Appellant having entered a plea of 'not guilty' to the offences that he was charged with. On closure of Prosecution evidence, the Appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denied the occurrence of the alleged incidents and acts.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that in the first instance the age of the victims have not been proved. The Learned Trial Court in the impugned Judgment has concluded that although Exhibit 3 the Birth Certificate of P.W.10 and Exhibit 4 the Birth Certificate of P.W.1 were furnished, the Prosecution failed to establish their age. That, this finding has not been assailed by the State-Respondent before this Court. That, the Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 and P.W.10 being Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 14 respectively, vary from the statements made by them before the Court, which, exacerbates the alleged acts of the Appellant, rendering the alleged victims as unreliable witnesses. That, the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the P.W.1 does not reveal any penetrative sexual assault contrary to her assertion of such act in her deposition before the Court. That, the evidence of P.W.10 before the Court is in contradiction to that of P.W.1, since, according to P.W.10, she had peeped into the room of the Appellant and seen P.W.1 being undressed by the Appellant after which he committed penetrative sexual assault on P.W.1. That, he then called P.W.10 to his room and in the presence of P.W.1 undressed her and also committed penetrative sexual assault on her. Conversely, P.W.1 deposed that she and P.W.10 wer