The credibility of minor victims in sexual assault cases does not solely rely on medical evidence; their coherent testimony can suffice for conviction, supported by corroborative witness accounts.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The instant appeal pertains to the sodomy of PW-4, the victim, aged about ten years, by the Accused-Appellant, then aged about thirty-nine years. The FIR, Exbt 2, was lodged on 09-02- 2021 by PW-3, the victim’s father, informing therein that the Appellant had inserted his penis into the mouth and anus of the child, PW-4, during January, 2021. PW-5 his wife, informed PW-4 of the acts of sexual assault. The Complainant then verified it from the victim who had affirmed the fact to him. The incidents occurred in the month of January, 2021 and had been perpetrated on the victim around eight times. The FIR came to be registered against the Appellant under Sections 4 and 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, “POCSO Act, 2012”) and Section 377 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”). Investigation was endorsed to PW-14, the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case, who on completion thereof filed Charge-Sheet against the Appellant under Sections 4 and 7 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Sections 377 and 506 of the IPC. The Learned Special Judge, POCSO, framed Charge against the Appellant under Section 377 of the IPC and Sections 5 (l) and 5(m) of the POCSO Act, 2012, both offences punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019 (hereinafter, “POCSO Act, 2019”) and also under Section 5 06 of the IPC. On a plea of “not guilty” by the Appellant, the trial commenced with the examination of fourteen witnesses.

(i) On analysing the entire evidence on record, the Learned Trial Court convicted the Appellant for the offences he was charged with, vide the impugned Judgment, dated 28-02-2022, in ST (POCSO) Case No.06 of 2021, in the Court of the Learned Special Judge, POCSO, Gyalshing. Vide the impugned Order on Sentence, dated 28-02-2022; (a) Under Section 377 of the IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fined Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only; (b) Under Section 5 06 of the IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fined Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only; (c) Under Section 5 (l) and Section 5 (m) both punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty-five years, each, and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only, respectively. The sentences of fine bore default stipulations, while the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently, setting off the period of imprisonment already undergone. The Trial Court while arriving at its finding of conviction observed that, the testimony of the victim was genuine, candid and a totally believable account of what he had undergone. That, a graphic account of how he was sodomized and sexually assaulted by the Appellant on more than one occasion was narrated by PW-4, which in the Trial Court’s opinion was sufficient to convict the Appellant. The Trial Court also observed that there was no apparent reason as to why the child would make such a serious allegation against the Appellant without any basis, especially since the Appellant was well-known to the family of the victim. The statements of the victim being convincing and trustworthy required no corroboration, nevertheless his parents PW-3 and PW-5 corroborated his testimony and PW-6 also deposed that the child had told him that the Appellant had sexually assaulted him and his statement remained undecimated. The Court was of the view that the evidence established that the Appellant had visited the