The sole testimony of a victim of sexual assault, especially a child, is sufficient for conviction if found credible and trustworthy, and it is not mandatory to seek corroboration or allow scientific evidence (like negative DNA reports) to override reliable eyewitness evidence.

Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1 Though the matter was listed for orders on application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, however, with the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2 The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.03.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO Act) Bemetara, in Sessions Case (POCSO) No.29/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 6 & 10 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo RI for Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- and RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.1000/- respectively.

3 Brief facts of the case are that, on 17.05.2022 at about 6 PM the complainant, PW-1, lodged a written complaint to the police that victim is daughter of his younger brother who had gone to Raipur to earn livelihood leaving the minor victim with him. On the date of incident at about 10 AM the victim had gone to her neighbors house and when she did not return back for a considerable time gap, his sister went to neighbours house and took the victim with her and informed the incident that she saw the incident that the appellant was wearing his underwear and when she returned to her home, the victim disclosed her that appellant has committed rape upon her. On the basis of written complaint Ex.P/1, FIR Ex.P/2 was registered against the appellant for the offence under Sections 376(AB) IPC and Sections 4&6 of POCSO Act. The victim was sent for her medical examination to District Hospital Bemetara where she was medically examined by PW-13, Dr. Puja Lovely, who gave her MLC report Ex.P/42. While medically examining her, no external injuries were found on the body of victim, however, her hymen was found ruptured. Two slides of her vaginal swab were prepared, sealed and handed over to the police for its chemical examination. Spot map Ex.P/3 was prepared by the police whereas Ex.P/4 by the Patwari. An underwear was seized from victim vide seizure memo Ex.P/6. With respect to age and date of birth victim, the police seized birth certificate of victim vide Ex.P/7. The said birth certificate is Article-A, according to which, her date of birth is 12.04.2015. School register was also seized vide Ex.P/9 and after retaining its attested true copy Ex.P/17-C, the original was returned back to the school. The appellant was arrested on 19.05.2022 and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/11. Since the appellant was found to be deaf and dumb, his memorandum statement was recorded through Special Sign Language Expert and Panchnama Ex.P/11 was prepared in presence of witnesses. The appellant was also sent for his medical examination to District Hospital Bemetara where he was medically examined by Doctor P.P. Pradhan, PW-7, who found the appellant capable to perform sexual intercourse and gave report Ex.P/20. Underwear of the appellant was also seized vide Ex.P/8. The underwear of victim, her vaginal slides and underwear of appellant were sent for its chemical examination to regional FSL Raipur from were report Ex.P/39 was received, according to which, semen and sperms were found on the underwear of appellant, however, no semen and sperms were found on the vaginal slides and underwear of the victim.

4 The statement under Section 161 CrPC of witnesses were recorded. The statement of victim under Section 164 CrPC was recorded. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Sections 376 (AB) IPC and Sections 4,6 and 10 of POCSO Act before the trial court. The trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Sections 376(AB) IPC and Section 5(m)/6 and 9(m)/10 of POCSO Act. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed trial.

5 In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement under Section 313 CrPC of the appellant has also been recor