The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in a victim's testimony do not negate credible evidence of sexual assault.

ORDER

The appeal challenges the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant vide Judgment dated 06.08.2020 passed in Special S.C.No.37 of 2019 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Puducherry, for the offences punishable under Sections 367, 377, 323 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act”). The appellant/sole accused was convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as follows:

2. (a) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/sole accused and the victim boy belong to the same village; that on 08.04.2019, between 08.00 p.m. and 09.00 p.m., the appellant allegedly kidnapped the minor boy aged about 8 years from the lawful guardianship of his parents on his motorcycle; that he took the child to a coconut grove in Auroville and committed penetrative sexual assault by applying coconut oil to his private part and that of the victim and subjected the victim to anal sexual intercourse; and that the appellant compelled the victim to apply his mouth to the private part of the appellant and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

(b). Based on a complaint given by the father of the victim/P.W.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police/P.W.17 registered an FIR/Ex.P18 for the offences under Sections 323, 367 & 506(ii) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The investigation was thereafter taken up by the Inspector of Police/P.W.18, who arranged for the medical examination of the victim and recording of his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and thereafter filed the final report for the aforesaid offences.

(c) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with, committed to the Court of Sessions, i.e., Principal Sessions Court, Puducherry, and made over to the learned Special Judge, Puducherry, for trial, which was taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.37 of 2019. The Trial Court framed five charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 367, 377, 323, and 506(ii) IPC and Sections 5(i), 5(l), and 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty.'

(d) To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 18 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked 22 exhibits as Exs.P1 to Ex.P22, besides eight material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.8. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his side.

(e) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated in the first paragraph of this Judgement. Hence, the accused has preferred the instant appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt; that there was a delay in lodging the complaint; that the victim disclosed the occurrence to his father only two days later, when he allegedly saw the appellant near his house; that the victim has made material improvements at every stage during the investigation and in his deposition before the Court; and that the medical evidence does not corroborate the version of the victim, and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor, Government of Puducherry, appearing for the respondent, per contra, would submit that delay in lodging the complaint in cases of sexual assault against children would not affect the prosecution case; that the victim had con