IMPORTANT POINT
The confession of the accused, the victim's testimony, and the identification of the accused by the victim were pivotal in establishing the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant has been convicted for having committed an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The appellant has served out nearly eight years of the ten-year sentence suffered by him.

2. The incident is of September 8, 2014. The complaint lodged with the Williamnagar Women's Police Station on September 9, 2014 by the mother of the victim claimed that the mother had gone to the market on the previous day and had left her daughters at home in village Wari Mandal. The FIR asserted that when the mother returned in the evening, she found her seven-year-old daughter not at home. The mother claimed that she undertook a search of the nearby areas along with her family members and, at around 5 pm, she found the victim lying in an unconscious state by the nearby jungle stream. The FIR also stated that after the victim was brought home and after she regained her consciousness, she revealed that she had gone to take a bath and wash her younger sister's nappies in the stream, when the appellant herein, who resided in the same village, took her to the upper side of the stream and sexually assaulted her.

3. In course of the investigation, the victim narrated the incident and at the time of her deposition at the trial, the victim claimed that she knew the appellant and clearly described that the appellant had raped her, whereupon she became unconscious from the pain that she had to bear. She claimed that when she returned to her senses, she found herself at home.

4. There is a slightly jarring note to the victim's deposition in the sense that in course of her cross-examination, she revealed that she did not know the appellant by name at the time of the incident. However, it is evident from the FIR and the mother's deposition that the victim had apparently named the appellant as the person who had raped her.

5. However, such minor aberration pales into insignificance in the light of the clear, categorical and unequivocal confession of the appellant before a Judicial Magistrate that was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In such statement, the appellant claimed that he 'committed a mistake and I confess to the crime that I have committed against a small girl who is about eight years old ...' Though the appellant replied in the negative to most of the questions put to him after the prosecution witnesses were examined, in course of his statement under Section 313 of the Code, the appellant admitted that he had made a confession before the Magistrate and added that such confession was not because of his guilt 'but because I fear the police.' Though, the relevant Magistrate was examined as PW8 and she identified the appellant in the Court and clearly stated that she remembered having accurately recorded the appellant's statement, there was a clear assertion by the appellant that his confessional statement was made because of his fear of the police.

6. To begin with, there is no doubt that the victim was raped. The medical report clearly indicated that the hymen was torn and there were signs of recent sexual intercourse. The medical report was prepared on September 9, 2014, the same day that the complaint was lodged and a day after the incident. There is also no doubt that the victim was a minor as the ossification test and the expert opinion upon dental examination indicated that the victim was seven years old and less than eight. Further, the appellant's confession referred to the victim to be eight years old, even if the confession of the guilt is overlooked for the moment.

7. Thus, the fact that the minor victim had been raped was established beyond doubt. Since there were no eye-witnesses and the appellant purported to retract the confession that he made before a Judicial Magistrate, it is to be ascertained whether there is any other material to link the appellant to the incident.

8. The victim's appare