In the absence of corroborating evidence, a conviction for sexual assault relies on the victim's testimony being clear, consistent, and credible. If the victim's account is vacillating or contradictory, it fails the 'sterling witness' standard, necessitating an acquittal due to the failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J.

1. The Appellant, a 31 year old married man, was alleged to have committed the offence of penetrative sexual assault and impregnated the female child, said to be 15 years at the time of the offence.

2. The Court of the Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), Gangtok, Sikkim, vide the impugned Judgment, dated 21-12-2023, in ST (POCSO) Case No.07 of 2021, having examined the entire evidence furnished by the Prosecution, convicted the Appellant of the offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “POCSO Act, 2012”). Vide Order on Sentence, dated 22-12-2023, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of twenty years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only, with a default stipulation.

3. Before delving into the merits of the matter, it is imperative to put forth a short summation of the Prosecution case. On 05-11-2020, PW-1 the victim's mother lodged Exbt P3/PW1, the FIR, informing the concerned Police Station that her daughter, aged about 15 years, was forced into a physical relation by and with the Appellant, about five to six months prior to the lodging of the FIR, resulting in her pregnancy of the same gestational period. Initially, her daughter, fearing ignominy did not inform anyone, but when PW- 1 unexpectedly came to learn of the pregnancy and made enquiries from the victim, she narrated the incident of sexual assault. The FIR was duly registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, at the concerned Police Station, against the Appellant and investigated into by PW-11, the Investigating Officer (I.O.). On completion of the investigation, Charge-Sheet came to be filed before the Learned Trial Court against the Appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, against the Appellant.

4. Charge was framed against the Appellant under Section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act, 2012, punishable under Section 6 thereof and under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”), to which he entered a plea of “not guilty” and sought trial. Eleven witnesses were examined by the Prosecution, on closure of which the Appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”). He denied knowledge of the incriminating evidence against him and claimed that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. After hearing the final arguments of Learned Counsel for the parties, the Court, on consideration of all relevant materials pronounced the impugned Judgment and the Order on Sentence. This Appeal has been filed assailing both.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant put forth the argument that the age of the victim was not proved and at the time of the lodging of the FIR the victim was already seven months pregnant, indicating a delay in the lodging of the FIR. The birth certificate of the victim was allegedly seized from PW-1, however PW-5 and PW-6, the witnesses to the seizure of the document, claimed ignorance of its contents or purport. PW-1, the mother of the victim failed to substantiate the Prosecution case with regard to