Conviction for sexual assault can be based on the sole testimony of the victim if deemed credible, despite minor discrepancies in their statements.

JUDGMENT :

G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.11.2021 in Spl.S.C. No.7 of 2017 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri.

2. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced as follows:-

3. According to the prosecution, the victim/PW1 minor girl aged 14 years was studying 10^th standard in Government Higher Secondary School at Athimarathur. PW1 is staying along with her grandmother at Pudhukadu of Eriyur. PW2/father and PW3/mother of the victim are staying away at Coimbatore and doing mason work for their livelihood and they visit the village once in a month. PW1’s brothers were also staying with her grandmother and all were going to school.

4. The accused is the parental uncle’s son/ cousin brother of the victim and their house is also situated near the victim’s house. Earlier, since the accused’s house was under construction, all of them stayed together in the grandmother’s house. The accused inspite of being a blood relative/ cousin brother of the victim, taking advantage, had forcible sexual intercourse on several occasions since the time she was in 9^th std. Immediately after Vinayakar Chathurthi festival, the accused who had come to victim’s house again had forcible sexual relationship.

5. The victim got severe stomach pain and feared that she was pregnant. When she informed the accused, he asked her to say that some of them had kidnapped, injucted and raped her. Due to pain and fear, without going to school, she had gone to the nearby forest area. PW4, on noticing the victim in uniform, enquired and intimated to her father/PW2 and took her to village Oor Gounder’s house.

6. PW1 narrated the incident to her parents, PW2 and PW3. PW1 lodged the complaint/Ex.P1. PW12/Sub-Inspector of Police received the complaint and registered FIR/Ex.P13. Thereafter PW13 took up the investigation, prepared Ex.P3/ observation mahazar and Ex.P14/Rough sketch. Requisition for medical examination of the victim was made in Ex.P6. Head Constable/PW7 took the victim/PW1 for medical examination. PW9/Doctor examined the victim and issued Accident Register/Ex.P8 and the medical opinion/Ex.P10. The accused was thereafter arrested and sent for medical examination by Doctor/PW11, who gave medical opinion/Ex.P11. PW8/Head Constable took the victim before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri, where the statement under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C, was recorded in Ex.P2.

7. PW13/Inspector of Police thereafter altered the offence from Sections 341, 506(i) IPC and 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act to Section 6 r/w 5(n) (l) of POCSO Act and 506(i) through the alteration report/Ex.P18. After completion of investigation, PW13 filed the final report.

8. The trial court, on taking the case on file, issued summons, complied with the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and framed the charges against the accused under Section 5 (n)(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and 506(i) IPC. When questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses as PW1 to PW13 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P18.

9. After completion of the prosecution evidence, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., about the incriminating materials available he denied the same as false. However, neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked on the side of the accused.

10. The trial court after conclusion of the