In sexual assault cases, victim's credible testimony can suffice for conviction absent corroborative evidence, particularly under the POCSO Act where legal presumptions apply strongly against the accused.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J)

The sole appellant has assailed the judgment passed in Special S.C.No. 144 of 2022, dated 10.01.2023, on the file of the Special Court for POCSO Act cases, Virudhunagar District at Sriviliputhur, wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the following manner.

The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl, who was studying in 9^th standard and was aged about 14 years, was present in her home at about 12 noon and the accused person, who is the father of the victim girl, is said to have sexually abused the victim girl and thereafter, removed the dress of the victim girl and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. The further case of the prosecution is that such offence was committed repeatedly on the victim girl.

3. The above incident came to light when the victim girl wrote two letters, marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, describing about the incident and which fortunately went into the hands of the school headmaster and the school headmaster summoned the mother of the victim girl (PW2) and informed about the incident. Based on the same, PW2 gave a complaint (Ex.P4) to PW6 on 29.04.2022 at 20.00 hours and based on the same, an FIR (Ex.P8) was registered in Crime No. 59 of 2022 for offences under Sections 506 (i) of IPC and Section 5(l)(n) read with Section 6, Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

4. The investigation was taken up by PW7 who went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P5) and the rough sketch (Ex.P9).

5. The victim girl was sent for medical examination to Kovilpatti Government Hospital and the victim girl was examined by the doctor (PW5). The doctor gave the certificate (Ex.P7) with the following findings:

“1. tzG; du;rr; p nraa; gg; ltpy;iy vdf;

$w ,ayhJ.

2. gpwgG; WgG; kwW; k; khug; fqf; s; efff; Puyf; s;

kwW; k ; fhaqf; s ; vJkpy;iy.

3. fdd; pjj; piu css; J.

4. rkPgjj; py; clYwT nfhss; gg; ll; mwpFwp vJTk ; ,y;iy.

5. fug; g; k; jupff; tpyi; y.

6. Cervical swab Nrfupff; gg; lL; s;sJ.

7. nti[dh Xu; RzL; tpuy; msT vegina ”

tpupe;Js;sJ.

6. The accused person was arrested by PW7 on 30.04.2022 at about 5 AM and he was sent for medical examination to PW4, who issued the certificate marked as Ex.P6. Thereafter, he was produced before the concerned court and remanded to judicial custody.

7. PW7 took steps to record the statement of the victim girl and the headmaster under Section 164 of CrPC.

8. The material collected from the victim girl and the accused person was sent for chemical analysis and the report was received (Ex.P12 to Ex.P14).

9. On completion of recording the statements of the witnesses and on collecting all the relevant materials and reports, the final report was filed before the Special Court.

10. The Special Court framed charges against the accused person for offences under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 3 read with Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act and Section 506(i) of IPC. The accused person denied the charges.

11. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Exhibits P1 to P14.

12. The incriminating evidence and circumstances was put to the accused person while he was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of CrPC and he denied the same as false.

13. The accused did not examine any witnesses nor did he rely upon any documents.

14. The trial court