Convictions under the POCSO Act require robust evidence; mere victim testimony is insufficient if fraught with contradictions.

JUDGMENT

Reserved on: 22.08.2024 Pronounced On: .08.2024 Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.

This appeal is preferred against judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Special (POCSO) Case No.21/2014, whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter ‘POCSO Act’).

2. As per the FIR which was lodged on 25.06.2014 by the victim girl aged 13 years, on 07.06.2014 in the evening at 6.30 she was washing clothes in the hand pump at the Aanganbari Centre in the village. Appellant in the meantime came there and committed rape by gagging her mouth with cloth. He also extended life threat to her for not disclosing the matter to anyone. She returned home and informed her family members about the incidence. Due to the threat, the case was not lodged immediately after incidence.

3. On the basis of the written report, T. Tanger P.S. Case No.27/14 was registered under Section 376 of the IPC and under Section 5(J)(11) of the POCSO Act against the appellant. Police on investigation found the case true and submitted charge sheet against the appellant. After cognizance and commitment, appellant was put on trial for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

4. Altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and relevant documents including statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., Medico Legal Examination report have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1 – 8.

5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Defence is of innocence, but no specific defence has been pleaded.

6. Judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that there is an inordinate delay of 18 days in lodging the FIR, for which no plausible explanation has been given by the informant. Although it has been deposed by the witnesses that a Panchayat was held after the incidence in the village, but the FIR does not refer to any such Panchayat and is completely silent about it. 7. It is argued that the case had been lodged to extort money which shall be evident from the testimony of the mother of the victim (P.W. 2) wherein she has deposed that Rs.1,00,000/- was demanded from the accused/appellant and when the demand was not met, the case was lodged. It is further argued that as per the FIR as well as in the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix (P.W. 6) at the time of incidence, she was all alone at the place of occurrence, whereas P.W. 2 has deposed that when she went in search of her daughter in the said evening, she found that her daughter was naked and the appellant was lying over her. At this, she chased away the accused with sleeper in her hand, and took her daughter back after dressing her to home.

8. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that law is settled in sexual assault cases, uncorroborated testimony of the victim girl is sufficient to pass a judgment of conviction. Further, there is a presumption against a person prosecuted for committing an offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act that the person has committed the offence, unless the contrary is proved. The delay in lodging the FIR has been explained as there was a threat extended by the appellant to the informant party and also the matter had been taken up in the village Panchayat.

9. At the outset, it need to be noted that The Evidence Act is a pragmatic document and proof a fact depends upon the facts and circumstance of each case. Section 134 of The Evidence Act does not mandate any specific number of witnesses required to