The court upheld the conviction under IPC and POCSO Act, emphasizing strong corroborative evidence and strict standards for sentencing in cases involving minors.

JUDGMENT :

HIRDESH, J.

1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374 of CrPC has been filed by appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri (MP) in Special Sessions Trial No.24 of 2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 (2) of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' additional imprisonment and under Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' additional imprisonment. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 08.03.2015, around 5:00 PM, complainant (PW-1), mother of minor proseuctrix, aged around 02 years, lodged a report at Police Station, Karera, District Shivpuri alleging therein that accused-appellant Prithviraj Kori, who lives near her hut and works as a Labourer, a day or two ago, came to her house. At that time, her daughter minor prosecutrix was weeping. It is alleged that accused-appellant took her daughter to get biscuits for her from shop. Around 03:00 PM, appellant- accused brought her daughter back to her. Her daughter started weeping. On being asked what happened, her daughter gestured towards her private parts. On seeing, she found that blood was oozing from her vagina. She understood that accused-appellant had done something wrong with her daughter. When she went near the appellant, he ran away. Then, she called her husband and went along-with her daughter to Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri for lodging a report. On the basis of such allegations, FIR at Crime No.129 of 2015 for offence punishable under Sections 376 of IPC and under Section 3 /4 of the POCSO Act was registered at Police Station Karera against the appellant-accused.

3. Matter was investigated. During investigation, medico-legal examination of minor prosecutrix was conducted. Vaginal slide and bloodstained underwear of prosecutrix was collected. Spot map was prepared. Statements of the witnesses including mother (PW-1), father (PW-2) and grand-father (PW-3) of minor prosecutrix were recorded. Accused was arrested and he was medically examined. Sealed packets of semen slides and a pair of blue underwear of accused were seized. Blood sample was sent for DNA testing. After completion of investigation and other formalities, the police filed Final Report/charge-sheet before the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction.

4. The Trial Court framed charges under Section 3 76 of IPC and Section 3 /4 of POCSO Act. Appellant abjured his guilt and sought trial. In turn, prosecution in order to prove its case examined 13 witnesses. After completion of prosecution witnesses, statement of accused was recorded under Section 3 13 of CrPC. In defence, appellant pleaded that he has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case. Accused-appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

5. After concluding the trial, the trial Court held the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him accordingly, as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment.

6. Being aggrieved, appellant has filed the instant appeal on the following grounds:-

(i) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court is contrary to law, solely on the basis of conjectures and surmises.

(ii) Prema Jatav (PW-5) did not support the prosecution version and there are many contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

(iii) Neither prosecution has recorded statement of any child witness of the scene of incident nor recorded the statement of minor prosecutrix.

(iv) No semen or blood particles of the accused were found on the clothes of minor prosecurix.

(v) In absence of clear evidence, the appellant cannot be link