The court affirmed that a victim's credible testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, is sufficient to establish guilt under the POCSO Act, overriding the need for further corroboration unless disbelief arises.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J) This criminal appeal has been filed assailing the judgment passed by the Mahila Court, Pudukottai in Spl. S.C.No.26/2022 dated 29.08.2022, wherein, the accused person has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:

The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period of sentence already undergone is ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused person is the father and the victim girl is the daughter. The victim girl was studying in 11^th standard at Government Higher Secondary School. The accused person is said to have committed penetrative sexual assault against the victim girl repeatedly and as a result, the victim girl became pregnant and was admitted to Pudukottai Raniyar Government Hospital for treatment and on

15.09.2021, the child was still born.

3. Based on the statement recorded from the victim girl, a complaint was preferred (Ex.P1), which resulted in the registration of the FIR (Ex.P8) for offence under Section 5l , 5j(ii) and Section 6 (1) of the POCSO Act

2012.

4. The statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P11). The victim had stated that she has two brothers and she was studying in the 11^th standard. On 14.04.2021, after everyone had left the house, at about 11 a.m., the accused person committed penetrative sexual assault. Thereafter, the accused person is said to have threatened the victim girl not to reveal about the same to anyone. This act was committed repeatedly and as a result, victim girl became pregnant and she delivered a still born premature child.

5. Based on the FIR registered, PW7 took up the investigation and went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P9 and rough sketch Ex.P10. She also took steps to get a DNA test done by the Forensic Sciences Lab, Chennai and accordingly, a requisition letter was sent. The investigating officer recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and also made arrangements for recording the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The DNA report (Ex.P4) was received and had confirmed the fact that the father of the child was the accused person. On completing the investigation, the final report was filed before the Special Court and the Special Court framed charges for offence under Sections 5l , 5n, 5j(ii) read with Section 6 (1) and 22 of the POCSO Amendment Act, 2019. The accused person denied the charges as false.

6. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Ex.P1 to P14.

7. The incriminating circumstances and the evidence were put to the accused person, when he was questioned under Section 313(i)(b) of Cr.P.C., and he denied the same as false.

8. The accused person did not examine any witness nor did he rely upon any document.

9. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary, evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has discharged its onus by establishing the foundational facts and the accused person failed to rebut the legal presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act and accordingly proceeded to convict and sentence the accused person in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed before this court.

10. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

11. The crux of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that a fal