The court upheld the conviction based on sufficient evidence, emphasizing the competency of child witnesses and the consistency of testimonies supporting the charges under the POCSO Act.

The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 21st October, 2016, passed by Special Judge under The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”, for short) in Special POCSO Case No.552 of 2014. The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act. He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fne of Rs.500/-. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act, and, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fve years and to pay fne of Rs.200/-. The appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/-, to the victim as per Rule 7 of POCSO Rules 2012 read with 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure . If the appellant failed to deposit the amount, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2 The prosecution case is as under:

On 5th October, 2014, the informant lodged a report stating that her marriage was performed 15 years ago. On account of ill treatment of her husband, she left her residence in 2004. In March 2006, she delivered child. She got acquainted with the accused, which turned into love. The accused took her in his house. His parents were opposing their relationship. They performed marriage and resided separately along with their daughter. On 1st October, 2014, complainant’s daughter was pregnant. She inquired with her the reason for it. She was scared. She confded that the accused was doing bad things with her since last one year. He used to give his place of urination in her mouth and used to ask her to lick. He used to kiss her. He used to threaten that if she would tell this fact to mother, he would cut off legs of her mother. Due to which she has not disclosed this fact to her. Informant was scared when she heard about these acts. So she did not immediately been to police station to lodge the report. Subsequently, the victim girl was subjected to penetrative sexual assault. First Information Report (“FIR”, for short) was registered vide C.R.No.672 of 2014, for offences punishable under Section 376(2) (f), 377, 506(II) of IPC and Sections 4, 5(n), 6 and 8 of POCSO Act.

Investigation was completed and charge–sheet was fled.

3 The charge was framed under Sections 6 and 10 of POCSO Act and Section 376 of IPC vide order dated 10th September, 2015. The period of commission of offences was 1st October, 2013 to 1st October, 2014.

4 The prosecution examined four witnesses. P.W.1 is the victim girl, P.W.2 is mother of victim, P.W.3 Dr.Mugdha Jhungare is the medical offcer, P.W4 Smt.Snehal Katkar is the investigating offcer.

5 The accused examined Santkumar B. Pal as D.W.1.

6 Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the appellant. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The statement of the victim was not recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The victim girl was tutored by her mother. There is delay in lodging FIR. While recording the evidence of the victim, the trial Court has not recorded satisfaction about competency of the victim to depose before the Court. Oath was not administered to her. The appellant was implicated in this case on the ground that he was addicted to drinking. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. The evidence of witnesses does not inspire confdence. The investigating offcer had not recorded statements of other witnesses. The evidence of the victim is not corroborated by independent evidence. The defence witness has supported the defence of the accused. The appellant was arrested on 5th October, 2014. He is in custody since then. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. There was no external injuries. There was no evidence about peno oral sex and digital penetration. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. The evidence of witnesses does not inspire confdence. There was no evidence about penoral sex, and, digital penetration.