The court affirmed that eyewitness testimony can suffice for conviction under the POCSO Act, even if the victim is unable to testify, and minor contradictions in witness statements do not undermine the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT

The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court under POCSO Cases, Tiruvannamalai, in Spl. S.C. No.77/2019, is assailed by the appellant by filing the present appeal.

2. The appellant stood charged and tried for the offences u/s 6 r/w 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) and Section 323 IPC and after trial, the Court below found the appellant guilty and convicted him under both the offences, sentenced him u/s 6 r/w 18 of POCSO Act to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years together with a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and for the u/s 323 sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period of incarceration already undergone was directed to be set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under :- P.W.s 1 and 2 are the father and mother of the victim. P.W.s 3 and 4 are relatives of P.W.s 1 and 2. On 17.01.2018 when P.W.s 1 and 2 were sitting in front of their house and conversing with each other, at that time, the appellant came and enquired about the status of P.W.s 1 and 2 and insisted that P.W.s 1 and 2 take care of the victim and not to allow her to go outside. The appellant further enquired P.W.1 as to whether the victim would take biscuits so that he can procure the same and give to the victim, however, P.W.1 declined stating that the victim would not eat and asked the appellant to leave the place. Thereafter, P.W.s 1 and 2 came inside the house. After coming inside the house, as P.W.1 heard some running noise upstairs, P.W.1 went upstairs and at that time found that the appellant had removed all the clothes of the victim and was trying to lie on top of the victim after removing his inner garments. P.W.1 questioned the act of the appellant in misbehaving with the victim, who was mentally challenged. At that time, the appellant informed P.W.1 that the victim had bitten him and slapping P.W.1 on the face, ran away from the place. P.W.2 on hearing the commotion came upstairs along with another woman, who was residing nearby. Thereafter, P.W.1, along with his relatives went and questioned the parents of the appellant about the act of the appellant with the victim, the appellant’s parents chastised them and informed that they will give a complaint against the victim for having bitten the appellant. Thereafter, P.W.1 came to the Disabled Welfare Office and informed the happening and with their assistance, P.W.1 lodged the complaint Ex.P-1, against the appellant.

4. P.W.10, the Inspector of Police of All Women Police Station, Tiruvannamalai, while on duty at about 4.00 p.m. on 17.01.2018, P.W.1 appeared before him and gave the written complaint, Ex.P-1, which was received by P.W.10 and P.W.10 registered a case in Crime No.1/2018 against the appellant for the offences u/s 354 (B), 376 r/w 511 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act by preparing printed FIR, Ex.P-5. The printed FIR, Ex.P-5 and the complaint, Ex.P-1 were forwarded to the Fast Track Mahila Court.

5. P.W.10 took up investigation of the case and examined the witnesses one Sudha and P.W.6 and recorded their statements. Since the victim was dumb and mentally challenged, P.W.10 did not record the statement of the victim. Upon examination of the witnesses, as P.W.10 came to know that the appellant had committed the offence, P.W.10 arrested the appellant at about 18.30 hours on the same day after informing his parents and he was brought o the police station by about 7.00 p.m. Since the appellant was injured, he was sent to Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai, for treatment. Thereafter, the appellant was produced before the Court and was sent for judicial remand.

6. P.W.10 also issued memo an