The conviction of an accused in sexual assault cases can be based on the sole, consistent, and credible testimony of the victim, as corroboration is not a mandatory legal requirement, provided the evidence inspires the confidence of the court.

JUDGMENT

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred, impugning the judgment of the learned Special Judge (Special Court for Trial of Offences against Children (Additional Sessions Court-I), Manjeri dated 31.05.2019 in S.C. No.681 of 2014. The offences alleged against the appellant/accused are under Section 376(2), (f), (i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(l), (m) and (n) r/w Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’).

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life (imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life) and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 376(2), (f), (i) and (n) of IPC.

Prosecution case

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a child aged about 11 years was allegedly subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the appellant/accused continuously for three days from 04.11.2014 to 06.11.2014. On 04.11.2014, while the victim was proceeding to her school, the accused invited her to enter his car. The victim, along with three or four students, was taken in his car. The prosecution further alleges that the appellant, after dropping the other students near the school, drove the vehicle in a different direction, and he had shown some porn videos and thereafter committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim. According to the prosecution, the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault on two more succeeding dates.

Registration of Crime and Investigation:

4. On the basis of the First Information Statement lodged by the victim on 09.11.2014, PW12 registered Ext.P17 FIR. PW11 conducted the investigation and laid the chargesheet before the Special Court. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused. Thereafter, the charge was framed, which was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On the side of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 12 were examined and Exts. P1 to P17 were marked. MOs. 1 to 3 were also identified and marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating circumstances put to him. On the side of the defence DW1 was examined, and Ext.D1 was marked.

6. The learned Special Judge, after a full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.

The submissions of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant

7. Adv. Mumthas Kakkat Valappil, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned Special Judge has convicted the accused without properly appreciating the evidence. The learned Special Judge convicted the accused only on the interested testimony of the victim. The place of occurrence is on the side of the road, and there are several houses in the vicinity. None of the witnesses from the locality was examined by the prosecution. The learned counsel would further submit that the non-examination of the mother of the victim is also fatal to the prosecution story. It is further pointed out that none of the students who allegedly accompanied the victim in the car were