Testimonial evidence of a minor victim can be sufficient for conviction in sexual assault cases, supported by medical corroboration indicating signs of assault despite the absence of semen.

JUDGMENT :

K. SURENDER, J.

1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 376(f) and Section 506 of IPC for committing rape on the victim girl/P.W.2 vide judgment in S.C.No.771 of 2011 dated 26.09.2012 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Mahabubnagar. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the victim girl/P.W.2 is that she was aged ten years. Around 7.00 or 8.00 a.m in the morning, the mother/P.W.1 and her grandmother went outside. When she was alone in the house, the appellant went into the house and asked about the mother and grandmother. P.W.2 stated that they were not in the house. Then the appellant forcibly took her into the room where he laid her on a gunny bag on the floor. He lifted her skirt and kept male organ in her private part and committed rape. P.W.2 shouted for help, but he did not leave her and closed her mouth with his hands. Thereafter, while leaving, the appellant threatened P.W.2 that if she discloses the incident, he would kill her. On the next day, P.W.2 had swelling of her private parts and when questioned by the mother/P.W.1, she stated about the incident. On the next day, it was informed to the father/P.W.3, who lodged complaint. Having received the complaint, police registered the case and filed charge sheet.

3. Learned Sessions Judge, having examined the witnesses including P.W.2/victim girl and P.W.2/Doctor found favour with the version of P.W.2 that she was subjected to rape and convicted the appellant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the entire version given by PW.2 and P.W.1 is highly improbable. The grandmother who was staying in the house was not examined by the prosecution. No reason is given as to why all the members in the household including P.Ws.1, 3 and grandmother and brother of the victim were not present in the house when the incident has taken place. There is a delay of nearly two days in lodging the complaint. The FSL report does not reflect that there was any semen or spermatozoa that was found on the vaginal smears of the victim girl collected during examination. In fact, false complaint has been foisted against the appellant as the appellant lent money to the parents of the victim girl and to avoid the loan amount, case was filed.

5. Learned counsel relied on the following judgments (i) Kathula Vasu v. The State of Telangana, 2024 (1) ALT (Crl.) 117 (A.P.); (ii) Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), (2006) 8 SCC 560 ; (iii) Karu Suryawanshi v. State of M.P. (2013) LLR 2966 (M.P.) (iv) Mariappan v. The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam, 2023 (2) LW(Crl) 596 and argued that there has to be penetration, which is missing and same can be inferred from not finding any semen or spermatozoa on the smears collected. The testimony of victim girl is not of sterling quality and unless there is corroborating evidence, her testimony cannot be taken into consideration for convicting the appellant. In fact, DNA testing was not done nor is there any explanation for the delay in lodging complaint.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that if the evidence of the victim girl is convincing that itself would suffice to record conviction. There is no reason why P.W.2, who was aged around 10 years would falsely implicate the appellant when the incident did not happen. The evidence of victim girl is convincing and the trial Court was right in finding the appellant guilty.

7. The P.W.2/victim’s statement regarding the incident is extracted below:

“My grandmother went outside to have tea, and I was alone in my house, accused came to the house enquired about P.W.1 and L.W.3 and my grandmother, then I told him