In sexual assault cases, consistent and corroborated testimony of the victim is sufficient for conviction of sterling quality. Appellate courts must strictly enforce mandatory minimum sentencing prescribed by legislation, and trial courts are required to exercise precision when framing charges to ensure the foundation of the trial is sound.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Appellant calls into question the Judgment of the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), dated 27-09-2023, in S.T. (POCSO) Case No.50 of 2019, by which he was convicted for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, under the said provision of law with a default stipulation.

2. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Appellant that, the Appellant has not committed the offence of rape on the alleged victim, who is his daughter and that, he has in his examination under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), clearly denied such allegations made against him. It has emerged in the evidence of PW-7, wife of the Appellant, that, the victim was in the habit of going around with the boys and was not interested in her education. The witness has also deposed that, the victim did not complain to her about the Appellant touching her inappropriately. That, the allegations against the Appellant by the victim emanate from the fact that the Appellant was a strict father. The victim was not amenable to his discipline or to doing household chores and has thereby implicated him falsely in the said offence. The evidence of the victim lacks fortification by any other Prosecution witness and thus fails to support their case of penetrative sexual assault. The Appellant in the facts and circumstances deserves an acquittal.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contrarily contended that, the victim’s evidence is consistent with regard to the allegations of penetrative sexual assault perpetrated on her by the Appellant in 2012 and 2013, both in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and in her testimony before the Court. That, PW-5 the Appellant’s son and PW-6 the Appellant’s daughter-in-law, have categorically supported the Prosecution case. They have deposed that PW-7, the wife of the Appellant, had herself told them that the Appellant was guilty of the offence of penetrative sexual assault against the victim, which she had witnessed. Hence, there is no evidence which would mitigate the case against the Appellant. In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the Judgment of Conviction and Order on Sentence of the Learned Trial Court.

4. The facts of the Prosecution case inter alia are that, the victim was working as a help/nanny in the house of PW-8, who is the Complainant in the instant matter. On 18-06-2016, the minor son of PW-8 suffered an injury while under the watch of the victim on account of which PW-8 reprimanded her. The victim left the house of PW-8 on that day. On the next day, 19-06-2016, PW-8 was rummaging through the belongings of the victim, when she came across a letter, Exbt-1, addressed to her by the victim. In the said letter, the victim had detailed the fact of penetrative sexual assault committed on her, by her father. That, same evening, i.e., 19-06-2016, the victim returned to the house of PW-8. On her return, PW-8 made enquiries from her regarding the information contained in the letter. On 20-06-2016, PW-8 lodged the FIR Exbt- 9, on the basis of which the Police registered a case bearing No.196/2016, dated 20-06-2016, under Section 376 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act, 2012), against the Appellant and endorsed it to PW-14, an SI at the concerne