The central legal point established in the judgment is the careful evaluation of evidence, especially when dealing with the testimony of a young child, and the application of the burden of proof under the POCSO Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal is filed questioning the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 25 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default SI for one year. Further compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to be paid to the victim girl.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.01.2021, the Police Saifabad received a complaint Ex.P1 from P.W.1, Dr.Kiranmai of Niloufer Hospital informing the police that the victim girl P.W.2 was admitted in the hospital with ‘battered baby syndrome’ and suspected that P.W.2 child was subjected to sexual abuse. Accordingly, a crime was registered for the offence under Section 376-AB and Section 5 of r/w section 6 of the POCSO Act and investigation handed over to P.W.15.

3. The victim/P.W.2 was initially brought to Niloufer Hospital by her father D.W.1 on 07.1.2021. On finding that the child must have been subjected to sexual abuse, P.W.1 referred the child to P.W.4, Dr.Prithvini for examination, diagnosis and treatment. P.W.4 examined the victim/P.W.1 and noticed multiple bruises on her body, bruised areas over the right side of the neck, orbital echymosis, contusions over the cheeks, bruised areas of the chest abdomen, legs and hands. Further, P.W.4 noticed that the child was unable to sit comfortably due to scratch marks over her buttocks. She also noticed ‘mons pubis contusion and tenderedness, on left labia majora healed abrasion wound, right sided labia was swollen to minimum extend, contusion and congestion over the vulval outlet, periurethral congestion. Her hymen was not intact.’ Due to her condition, it was found that the said injuries found were signs of sexual assault and accordingly swabs and smears and nail clipping of the victim/P.W.2 were collected for the purpose of FSL examination. After receipt of FSL report, P.W.4 dated 15.02.2021 gave opinion that “possibility of sexual assault could not ruled out”.

4. On the basis of the complaint filed by P.W.1 on 09.01.2021 after the initial assessment by P.W.4, the crime was registered under Section 376-AB of IPC, Section 6 read with Section 5 of POCSO Act against unknown accused on 09.01.2021.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that the child was also examined at Bharosa Centre by P.W.13 on 01.02.2021, Section164 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 was recorded on 16.02.2021. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested on 20.02.2021. The trial Court examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 15 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. The father of the victim girl examined himself as D.W.1 and also Exs.D1 to D11 were marked on behalf of defence. Exs.D1 to D6 were marked through P.W.8, Ex.D7 was marked through P.W.9 and Exs.D10 and D11 were marked during the evidence of D.W.1. After consideration of the entire evidence, the Sessions Court convicted as stated above.

6. Sri Pradyumnakumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant argued that i) the entire evidence of the prosecution is belied by the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 who initially examined PW2 but stated nothing about any sexual assault and whose evidence is neither disputed nor the witnesses were declared hostile; ii) the reason for false implication of the appellant is apparent from the ongoing disputes between the mother-P.W.3 and father-D.W.1; iii) in view of the disputes, P.W.3-mother has tutored and has fabricated the entire case against the appellant; iv) the tutoring is apparent for the reason of the appellant being arrested for the first time on 20.02.2021 and this delay is not explained since the FIR was registered on 09.01.2021 against unknown and even prior to that the victim child was alleged to have been subjected to sexual abuse; v) the statement recorded by P.W.13 at Bharosa Centre, case sheet of the treatment of the child and also Section 164 statement are suppressed by the prosecution; vi) the evidence of D.W.1 father of the victim girl, who was examined