The credibility of a child witness can uphold a conviction in sexual assault cases, regardless of physical evidence, provided the testimony is consistent and reliable.

2. The investigation commenced on 10.03.2017 when on the complaint of mother of the prosecutrix, an FIR was registered with the allegations that on 09.03.2017, the complainant had gone to work, and upon returning home, she was informed by her daughter that in complainant’s absence, the appellant, who was living in neighborhood, had come to their house and forcibly took her to his place where, after removing her underwear and his own clothes had committed the offence of rape. The complainant further stated that her husband had gone to work at night and on his return in the morning, the complaint was lodged. During the investigation, the statements of the child victim as well as her mother were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The child victim stated that while she was playing with her brother, the appellant came in their house and when they tried to force him out, he gagged her mouth and took her to his own room where he removed her underwear and committed the offence of rape. Her brother followed, and when he kicked open the door, she managed to run away. On framing of charge, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In total, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses, with the child victim and her parents being examined as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. Dr. Seema, CMO, Babu Jagjeevan Ram Hospital, who proved the MLC of the child victim, was examined as PW-4. The I.O. of the case W/SI Sujata was examined as PW-7. The rest of the witnesses were formal in nature who deposed as to various aspects of investigation. The statement of learned counsel for the appellant was recorded on 09.01.2019, where he admitted the registration of the FIR, proceedings of recording of the statement of the child victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as well as her age.

4. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the prosecution’s case and further claimed that he was falsely implicated, as there was a quarrel between him along with his sister and the parents of the child victim on the issue of throwing of garbage. He also examined his sister as DW-1 in support of the above defense.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to assail the credibility of the complainant i.e., the mother of the child victim, by contending that her conduct after being informed of the incident by her daughter is not mature. Instead of calling her husband or visiting him in the factory or reporting the incident, she rather waited the whole night. In fact, father of the child victim in his cross-examination stated that his factory was only 5 minutes away from the house. The reliability of the testimony of child victim as well as her parents is also doubted on the strength of DD No.014A lodged on 10.03.2017, which is the first information where only a quarrel was reported. The said DD entry does not mention about any incident of rape having occurred with the child victim, the previous night. He further refers to the MLC of the child victim to submit that no injury was noted on the child victim which would lend support to the allegation of rape. Lastly, it is contended that both MLC (Ex.PW4/A) and FSL report have not lent any support to the prosecution case as neither any injuries were noted in MLC nor any samples collected during investigation matched in the forensic examination.

6. The appellant’s contentions are refuted