Conviction in sexual assault cases relies on victim testimony and does not require corroboration if credible; child witnesses can testify if they understand questions.

1. Heard.

2. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 30.06.2020 in Special POCSO Case No.62 of 2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, convicting the appellant as follows:

3. The prosecution case in short is as under:

On 02.07.2017 at about 2.00 p.m., the victim, a minor girl, aged 8 years, was playing with her friends, Kartik and Aniket in dilapidated house of one Manoj Tokalwar. The accused came there and asked the victim to come with him. He then took her inside the room, latched the door, removed the victim’s clothes and also his clothes. The accused then made victim lie down, after which he slept on her person and inserted his penis into her vagina. The victim then shouted and called out to her maternal aunt Ashwini. Then she came and knocked on the locked door. The accused then hid himself, while Kartik, who was hiding in that room itself, went and opened the door. The victim then rushed to her aunt and informed her about the incident.

4. On returning back of victim’s mother from her work, she was informed about occurrence. Thereafter, she together with the victim and other ladies, went to the police station and lodged a report regarding the said occurrence. Thereupon, the police registered the FIR.

5. On investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence as stated herein above.

6. The charge came to be explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), was recorded, which is of total denial.

8. I have heard Shri Ali, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Thakare, learned APP for the State and Ms Kavimandan, learned counsel for the victim.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant argues as under:

a) No offence is made out by the prosecution against the appellant;

b) considering the oral as well as documentary evidence at the most, the offence would be under Section 354 of the IPC or of an attempt;

c) there are discrepancies in spot of occurrence which create doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story;

d) semen on legging of victim, was noticed by witnesses but C.A. Report does not disclose it.

e) there are contradictions in oral evidence of the prosecution, which are vital and create doubt about the prosecution story and commission of the alleged rape; and

f) there was tutoring and it can be seen from the victim’s oral testimony as well as from child witness (PW 5).

10. On the other hand, the learned APP argues as follows:

a) the impugned judgment and order is sustainable in the eye of law, as there is no illegality or legal infirmity committed by the trial Court.

b) victim's oral testimony is sufficient to prove the prosecution case;

c) a corroborative evidence is available on record to the oral testimony of the victim and therefore, even if there are some discrepancies in the spot of occurrence, it is not fatal; and

d) it is not a case of the accused that he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence.

11. The learned APP has placed a reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the following cases;

i) State of Rajasthan Vs. Om Prakash , (2002) 5 Supreme