The court affirmed that a victim's testimony in sexual assault cases is sufficient for conviction, despite minor discrepancies and delay in the FIR, highlighting the credibility of the victim as paramount.

1. Heard Mr. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

2. By the present appeal, the appellant challenges the impugned Judgment dated 30.10. 2019, passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Barpeta, in Special POCSO Case No. 90/2018, convicting the accused appellant for the offence punishable under S.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, in brevity, 'POCSO Act, 2012') and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, Simple Imprisonment for one year.

3. The brief facts of the case is that one Smt Bhagya Paul lodged an FIR before the Officer - In - Charge, Tarabari Police Station, on 01.01.2019, stating inter alia that on 31.12.2017, at around 8:00 pm, her daughter aged about 12 years went out from their house to watch 'Asta - Prahar' (Naam Yagya) at Bahari Reserve Barowari Durgabari, along with her friends. At about 09:00 pm, she went alone to purchase food stuff from a shop and at the time of returning, the accused appellant gagged her mouth by applying force and dragged her towards Bahari rice market and committed sexual intercourse with her. The accused appellants also threatened the victim not to disclose the fact to anybody, otherwise she would be killed.

4. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered vide Tarabari PS Case No. 01/2018, under S.4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the Investigating Officer had started investigation. During investigation, the Investigating Officer had visited the place of occurrence, interrogated the witnesses. The statement of the victim was recorded under S.164 CrPC by learned Magistrate. Victim was also forwarded to the Medical Officer for her examination. The Investigating Officer also seized one birth certificate of the victim to confirm her age. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant under S.4 of the POCSO Act.

5. During trial, charge was framed under S.4 of the POCSO Act, which was read over and explained to the accused appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, 7 (seven) witnesses were examined, including the victim and marked six exhibits. After completion of trial, the statement of the accused appellant was recorded under S.313 CrPC, wherein the incriminating materials found against him in the evidence of the witnesses were put to him, to which he denied the same. According to the appellant, he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, the appellant did not adduce any witness in support of his case. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court had delivered the Judgment as aforesaid.

7. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order, the accused appellant has preferred this appeal, challenging the conviction by the trial Court as aforesaid.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that there was one day delay in lodging the FIR and no such explanation was given regarding such delay, which is fatal to the prosecution case.

9. Another point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the sketch map was not properly prepared. As the occurrence took place in the market area, the shopkeepers or the nearby people were required to be examined by the prosecution to prove the case. As per sketch map, the shop of Babul was adjacent to the place of occurrence, who was also not examin