Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.
1. The appeal is directed against the judgement and an order passed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cun-Special Court (POCSO), South Andaman, dated March 22, 2024 in Special Case No. 54 of 2021, convicting the appellant under Section 5(1)(m)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as”POCSO Act‟) and Section 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ”IPC‟) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and also to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/-, out of which 90 per cent amount shall be paid to the victim as compensation under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as”CrPC‟).
2. It is the prosecution's case that in July 2021, the appellant, R. Muniyaswamy, lured his nine-year-old daughter (PW-3) and her eight-year-old friend (PW-1) to a jungle area behind a school under the pretext of plucking jackfruits. While PW-3 was sent on errands to fetch water and sacks, the appellant sexually assaulted PW-1, involving penetrative acts and forceful touching. He allegedly threatened both children with death to ensure their silence. Subsequently, the appellant committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault against his daughter at home while his wife (PW-4) was on night duty. The abuse came to light on July 30, 2021, when PW-3 disclosed the incidents to her mother, resulting in the registration of FIRs 66/2021 and 82/2021. Medical evidence corroborated these accounts, showing genital injuries indicative of forceful penetration. Consequently, the appellant was convicted for grave offences under the POCSO Act and the IPC.
3. Upon consideration of the case records and hearing both parties, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant under Section 5(1)(m)/6 of the POCSO Act alternatively section 376/506 of the IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined thirteen (13) witnesses and produced several documents and material objects marked as Exhibits 1 to 16. The appellant did not lead any evidence in defence but was examined under Section 313 of CrPC.
5. Upon completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by judgment and order dated March 22, 2024, convicted and sentenced the appellant in accordance with law.
6. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings of the Learned Trial Court on multiple grounds, primarily highlighting inconsistencies in the prosecution‟s case. It is submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant in Special Case No. 44 of 2021 (St. No. 42 of 2021) are wholly unsustainable both in law and on facts and are liable to be set aside. The learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and has returned findings which are contrary to the settled principles governing criminal jurisprudence.
7. It is submitted that the appellant has been subjected to multiple prosecutions arising out of the same or substantially identical transaction, in violation of the protection against double jeopardy embodied under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. The institution of interrelated proceedings through FIR Pahargaon P.S. No. 66/2021 dated July 30, 2021, FIR No. 82/2021 dated September 09, 2021 and NCFIR No. 120/21 dated July 24, 2021, followed by successive charge-sheets and separate trials, has resulted in the appellant being prosecuted repeatedly on the basis of the same factual foundation. Although the prosecution treated each child as a separate victim, it simultaneously relied upon substantially identical witness statements, documentary materials and investigative evidence in each proceeding. Such fragmentation of a single transaction into multiple prosecutions amounts to a piecemeal trial of the same cause and has caused grave prejudice to the appellant, thereby vitiating the fairness of the proceedings.
8. It is further submitted that the FIRs and the charge-sheet suffer from serious legal and procedural defects. The complaints do not disclose the essential particulars relating to the precise time, place and sequence of the alleged incidents, thereby depriving the appellant of clear and specific notice of the accusations as required under Section 211 of the CrPC. Likewise, the mandate of Section 218 CrPC, requiring distinct and specific charges for distinct offences, has not been complied with. The charges framed by the learned trial court are vague, composite and lacking in material particulars. Charge Sheet No. 86 of 2021 indiscriminately incorporates several statutory provisions without setting out the specific allegations attributable to the appellant, thereby seriously prejudicing his right to effectively defend himself. Such defects go to the root of the trial and render the prosecution fundamentally unfair.
9. It is further submitted that the prosecution case is riddled with material contradictions and inconsistencies which strike at its very foundation. The genesis of the alleged occurrence has been narrated differently by five principal witnesses, namely the two alleged victims, their respective mothers and the father of PW-1, none of whom have furnished a consistent account regarding the dates, timings or sequence of events. The testimony of PW-2, the mother of Victim No. 1 (herein PW-1), is per se inconsistent, as she refers to different dates, namely July 23, 2021 and July 24, 2021 and had earlier lodged NCFIR No. 120/21 dated July 24, 2021 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC without making any allegation of penetrative sexual assault. These inconsistencies demonstrate that the prosecution story underwent significant development following repeated police intervention and consultations. The substantial variations between the FIRs, the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the depositions before the trial court unmistakably indicate embellishment and improvement in the prosecution narrative. Where the prosecution rests substantially upon the testimony of child witnesses, such evidence must be wholly reliable and inspire confidence beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the evidence falls considerably short of that standard.
10. It is also submitted that the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC were obtained in circumstances that cast serious doubt upon their voluntariness and reliability. The translation of these statements was undertaken by persons, including one Ms. Mariya Sheela, who subsequently appeared as prosecution witnesses during trial. Such dual participation compromises the neutrality of the recording process and undermines the statutory safeguards contemplated under Section 164 CrPC. The apparent reproduction of substantially identical statements across separate records and the mechanical manner in which they were recorded further create a legitimate apprehension that the statements were not independent or spontaneous, thereby substantially diminishing their evidentiary value.
11. It is further submitted that the investigation conducted by the prosecution was casual, incomplete and fundamentally defective. The Investigating Officer failed to collect or forward crucial forensic material for examination by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. Timely medical and scientific corroboration was not secured, while the investigation proceeded largely on assumptions rather than objective forensic analysis. Material exhibits and biological samples were either inadequately preserved or subjected to unexplained delays. Despite the alleged occurrence having taken place in a densely populated locality, the investigating agency failed to secure available independent corroborative evidence. The admission of the Investigating Officer that neither the medical kit nor the biological samples of the appellant were forwarded for forensic examination is a significant omission which materially weakens the prosecution case. Such investigative lapses necessarily create reasonable doubt and must operate in favour of the accused.
12. It is submitted that the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution does not conclusively support the allegations of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The medical examination was conducted in an incomplete manner by a non-specialist and lacks the degree of detail ordinarily expected in cases involving allegations of sexual assault upon minor children. The recorded findings, including the absence of definitive signs of penetration and the inconsistencies appearing in the medical records, do not corroborate the prosecution version. In criminal jurisprudence, where the medical evidence is inconclusive or inconsistent with the oral testimony, it cannot be relied upon to dispel the reasonable doubt arising from the contradictory evidence adduced by the prosecution.
13. It is further submitted that the surrounding circumstances disclose a strong motive for false implication. The strained matrimonial relationship between the appellant and his wife, coupled with the admitted hostility of the complainant and the existence of the earlier NCFIR dated July 24, 2021, furnish a plausible basis for malicious prosecution. The involvement of neighbours in the development of the allegations and the delayed participation of several prosecution witnesses further raise the possibility of tutoring, collusion and motivated accusations. These circumstances assume considerable significance while assessing the credibility of the prosecution case.
14. It is submitted that the trial itself was attended by several procedural irregularities which have occasioned serious prejudice to the appellant. Material witnesses were examined belatedly, documentary evidence was exhibited without strict adherence to the prescribed procedure and the learned trial court appears to have approached the evidence with an emotional rather than a judicial perspective. Furthermore, despite facing charges carrying severe penal consequences, the appellant was not afforded meaningful and effective legal representation. The cumulative effect of these irregularities amounts to a denial of the appellant's constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The cumulative effect of the defective FIRs and charge-sheet, the multiplicity of proceedings exposing the appellant to double jeopardy, the material contradictions and improvements in the prosecution evidence, the doubtful recording of statements under Section 164 CrPC, the defective investigation, the inconclusive medical evidence, the existence of a strong motive for false implication and the procedural irregularities during trial create substantial and reasonable doubt which must necessarily inure to the benefit of the appellant. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), South Andaman, be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of all the charges. In the alternative, should this Hon'ble Court be of the view that the procedural infirmities have occasioned a failure of justice requiring fresh adjudication, the matter may be remanded for a de novo trial before another competent court after setting aside the proceedings vitiated by the violations of Section 300 CrPC and other mandatory procedural safeguards. It is, therefore, submitted by the Learned counsel that the present appeal be allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside, the appellant be acquitted of all the charges.
16. The learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned judgment dated March 22, 2024 passed by the Special Judge POCSO, Port Blair, convicting the accused for offences under Section 5(1)(m) and (n) read with section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Sections 376 and 506 IPC, is legally sound and requires no interference by this Court. The trial court carefully analysed the evidence on record, applied the correct legal principles and reached a conclusion that is fully supported by evidence. The prosecution‟s case, as pleaded and proved, discloses the commission of grave sexual offences on a minor and the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the court below deserve to be upheld.
17. On the facts of the case, the learned counsel submits that the prosecution case originated from the spontaneous and consistent complaint of the child victim, PW-3, who was about nine years old at the relevant time. Her initial statement led to FIR No. 66/2021 dated July 30, 2021 and subsequent investigation. The victim‟s account, made contemporaneously to her mother and subsequently recorded under Section 164 CrPC, narrates repeated acts of sexual assault by her father at and near the stated place of occurrence. The victim also described related acts committed upon another minor, her friend herein PW-1, which produced a separate FIR (No. 82/2021) and investigative activity. The prosecution‟s reliance on both victim statements was properly managed by the investigating agency and the trial court.
18. The learned counsel emphasises that the victim‟s evidence is cogent, coherent and reliable. She gave a detailed narration of the incidents including the sequence, the location i.e., “nearby to our school,” the threats used by the accused to silence the children and the subsequent disclosure to her mother on July 30, 2021 which was the genesis of police action. The trial court correctly evaluated these statements, including the evidence recorded under Section 164 CrPC and held that the testimony of the minor was fully trustworthy. The Court‟s approach accords with established principles that a child‟s consistent and truthful testimony merits full weight where it is corroborated and not inherently improbable.
19. The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act operates in the State‟s favour, once the prosecution proves that the sexual act occurred and the complainant was a child at the time, the Court is entitled to presume the absence of consent and the accused‟s culpability unless rebutted. In the present case, the age proof of the victim in Exhibit P-15 was placed on record and the medical, documentary and testimonial material satisfy the ingredients of the charged offences. There is no viable evidence from the defence to rebut the statutory presumption, instead, the accused, in his 313 CrPC answers, admitted the place of occurrence, which the trial court correctly treated as corroborative of the prosecution version.
20. The other prosecution witnesses corroborated the victim‟s account. The State called thirteen witnesses in all and their testimony collectively supports the core narrative that the occurrence of sexual acts upon the victim by the accused, repeated incidents over multiple nights, the threats to kill if the children disclosed the acts and the trauma that induced delayed disclosure. The prosecution relied on documentary exhibits signatures of the victim on the initial statement, signatures on the Section 164 CrPC statement and the formal FIR, all of which were properly admitted and weigh in favour of the prosecution.
21. The learned counsel addresses the defence arguments regarding alleged inconsistencies, delay and purported defects in investigation. Firstly, minor inconsistencies on collateral or temporal particulars do not render the victim‟s testimony improbable. The victim herself admitted inability to recollect exact dates, which is understandable in a case involving a very young child recounting traumatic events. Courts have routinely held that minor discrepancies in chronology or detail do not destroy the core narrative, particularly where the child demonstrates consistent recall of material facts. The trial court properly separated peripheral discrepancies from substantive testimony and found the latter to be reliable.
22. Secondly, the defence has sought to attribute significance to alleged “defective investigation.” The learned counsel for the State submits that any imperfections in investigation cannot override credible and unimpeached testimony of a child-victim supported by contemporaneous statements and documentary proof. The law does not permit a flawed investigation to be used as a cloak for acquittal where the evidentiary foundation for conviction is otherwise robust. The investigating officer took appropriate steps after the initial complaint including registration of the second FIR when a separate victim and distinct facts emerged, obtaining relevant documents from the court as permitted and filing charge-sheets after completion of investigation which manifest a bona fide inquiry.
23. Third, the defence has hinted at possible motive or enmity or disputes involving the victim‟s family, as a ground for doubting the prosecution‟s case. The learned counsel submits there is no material before the Court to show any such enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused. No witness produced credible evidence of animus and there is no suggestion of collusion that can account for the consistent accounts given by the minor and corroborated by others. The trial court correctly observed the absence of evidence of any grudge or motive for fabrication.
24. Concerning the requirement of corroboration, the prosecution relied on the victim child‟s own statements and supporting testimony rather than on extraneous corroboration as a sine qua non. It is settled law that the testimony of a child, if found reliable, can itself form the basis for conviction. Where corroboration exists in the form of other witnesses‟ statements, documentary evidence and the accused‟s admissions on material points, the prosecution case becomes that much stronger. The trial court‟s reliance on the cumulative weight of testimony and exhibits was legally correct.
25. On the question of sentence and the gravity of offences, the learned counsel stresses that these were repeated penetrative sexual assaults on a child below the age of 12 by her own father herein the appellant conduct that strikes at the core of social justice and child protection. The POCSO Act envisages stringent punishment for such offences to vindicate the rights of the child and to deter the commission of sexual crimes within the family. The trial court‟s sentence, imposed after due consideration of the facts and law, is justified and falls within permissible judicial discretion.
26. Moreover, the learned counsel submits that the benefit of every reasonable doubt must be given to an accused, but such benefit cannot be extended on the basis of speculation or technicalities when the evidence before the court is direct, consistent and credible. The trial court applied the correct standard of proof, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt and the cumulative material satisfied that standard. The conviction is therefore sustainable both legally and factually.
27. Therefore, the learned counsel for the State submits that this Court uphold the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge POCSO, Port Blair, dated March 22, 2024, dismiss the appeal filed by the accused and thereby affirm the trial court‟s findings.
28. The Learned counsel appearing for the minor victim submits that the learned Trial Court correctly convicted the appellant based on overwhelming oral, medical and documentary evidence and this appeal should therefore be dismissed. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the foundational facts constituting offences under Sections 5(l), 5(m) and 5(n) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
29. The minor victim‟s (PW‑1) testimony is the cornerstone of the prosecution‟s case. She gave consistent, clear evidence that the appellant, her father, repeatedly committed aggravated penetrative sexual assaults and threatened her with severe consequences if she disclosed the incidents. Her court testimony matched her statements under Section 161 CrPC and Section 164 CrPC and she correctly identified the appellant before the Trial Court. It is well established that the uncontradicted, natural and reliable testimony of a child sexual‑assault victim can alone sustain a conviction without independent corroboration. Here, PW‑1‟s evidence is wholly dependable and remained unshaken in cross‑examination.
30. PW‑1‟s account is substantially corroborated by PW‑4, the victim‟s mother, who testified that the victim promptly disclosed the assaults on her and another minor girl. PW‑4 also described the appellant‟s repeated threats to kill the children if they revealed the abuse, which satisfactorily explains any initial silence. PW‑4immediately reported the offences to the police, leading to prompt FIR registration and negating any suggestion of fabrication.
31. The prosecution case is further reinforced by PW‑3, the other child victim, whose testimony aligns with PW‑1‟s account and demonstrates a consistent pattern of abuse by the appellant. The evidence of PW‑4, PW‑5 and PW‑6 further supports the prosecution‟s version. Critically, the medical evidence adduced through PW‑7 showed genital injuries indicative of forceful penetration, providing scientific corroboration of the ocular testimony. Documentary evidence conclusively establishes the victim‟s status as a child at the time of the offences, bringing the matter squarely within the POCSO Act.
32. The procedural objections raised by the appellant lack merit. The charge contained required particulars under the CrPC, no contemporaneous objection was taken to the interpreter‟s appointment during trial and the appellant had effective legal representation throughout. No prejudice has been shown due to any alleged procedural lapse. Similarly, purported contradictions in the Section 164 CrPC statements were not confronted with the witnesses at trial and therefore cannot be first relied upon on appeal. Mere technical irregularities that do not result in a miscarriage of justice cannot invalidate an otherwise fair trial.
33. Therefore, the foundational facts by consistent ocular, medical and documentary evidence, the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act was rightly attracted. The appellant failed to rebut that presumption with credible evidence. A proper appraisal of the record by the Trial Court therefore led to a correct conviction. The conviction and sentence merit no interference and the appeal should be dismissed.
34. We have heard learned Advocates for the parties and have gone through the evidence of record meticulously which reveals as follows:
I. PW-1, an 8-year-old student, deposed that while she was plucking jackfruits with her friend and her friend's father, the latter took advantage of a moment when his daughter was away to sexually assault her. She stated that the accused forced her to remove her undergarment, inserted his private part into hers and pressed her breasts, subsequently threatening to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone. PW-1 further noted that her friend witnessed the incident and later informed others, leading to the involvement of the police. During the proceedings, the witness successfully identified the accused in court and verified her signatures on prior statements made to Child Line and the Ld. Magistrate. Despite cross-examination suggesting the incident was fabricated due to domestic enmity or the accused's habitual drunkenness, the witness maintained the truth of her account, confirming she had informed her mother before leaving with the accused and describing the clothing she wore at the time of the offense
II. PW-2,Mariya Sheela, deposed that she was serving as the Project Coordinator of Child Line, Prayas and was holding the same post on July 30, 2021. She stated that on the said date the statement of the victim girl was recorded in her presence. She identified her signatures on the said statement, which were marked as Ext. P-1/3 and Ext. P-1/4. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the time had not been noted beside her signatures on the aforesaid statement. She further stated that she had no personal knowledge regarding the facts of the present case.
III. PW-3, the other victim girl, deposed that at the time of her examination she was residing at Love Children's Home and studying in Class VI at Bimblitan Senior Secondary School. She stated that at the time of the incident she was a student of Class V at Prothrapur Government Senior Secondary School. She deposed that on the date of the occurrence she, her father (the accused) and the victim girl had gone to pluck jackfruit. According to her, the accused asked her to fetch a sack and when she attempted to take the victim girl along, the accused directed the victim girl to remain behind. She stated that while returning with the sack she saw the accused committing "ganda kaam" with the victim girl. Thereafter, the accused sent her to fetch water, and when she returned, she again saw the accused lying on the victim girl and committing "ganda kaam". She further deposed that the accused threatened both of them with death if they disclosed the incident to anyone. She stated that after returning home, when her mother had left for night duty, the accused also committed "ganda kaam" with her. She deposed that after her mother returned from duty, she narrated both incidents to her, whereupon her mother went to the police station and lodged a complaint. She proved her signature on the statement recorded by Child Line and also identified her signature on her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. She identified the accused, present in Court, as her father.
In her cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that the accused was an alcoholic who, after consuming liquor, used to quarrel with family members and often assaulted her and her brother, resulting in police complaints being lodged against him. She further admitted that about seven days prior to the incident, her mother had also lodged a police complaint against the accused for his drunken misbehaviour and assaults. She stated that her mother and the victim girl's mother were close friends and visited each other. She denied the suggestion that the accused used to drop and pick up both girls from school. She stated that she could not recollect the exact date of the incident or the clothes worn by her on that day, though she remembered that the victim girl was wearing a pant and shirt but could not recall their colour. She admitted that before going to pluck jackfruit she had informed her mother and that the place of occurrence, situated behind a school, was in a crowded area and visible from the school. She stated that when the accused committed "galat kaam" with her at home, both her brothers were in her grandparents' room. She denied all suggestions that no such incident had taken place either with her or the victim girl, that the accused had been falsely implicated at the instance of the police, that she and the victim girl had been tutored by her mother to depose against the accused, that a false case had been instituted because the accused used to assault the family after consuming liquor, that the accused had not committed any wrongful act with her.
V. PW-4, the mother of the victim, deposed that on July 23, 2021 her daughter informed her that the accused, who is her husband, had taken her and her friend, both aged about nine years, to the jungle behind GSS School, Prothrapur, for plucking jackfruit. She stated that the accused first sent her daughter home to fetch water and upon her return, the child witnessed the accused committing wrongful acts with her friend. Thereafter, the accused again sent her daughter to bring gunny bags and when she returned, she once again saw the accused indulging in the same wrongful acts with her friend, whereupon she stopped at a distance. According to the witness, the accused threatened both girls with dire consequences, stating that he would cut their throats if they disclosed the incident to anyone and thereafter brought them back home. She further deposed that after a few days, while she was away on night duty, the accused committed a similar wrongful act with her daughter. Upon learning of these incidents from her daughter, she took her to the Police Station and lodged a complaint, following which the police called the victim's friend and her mother to the Police Station. Thereafter, both children were taken to the hospital for medical examination and she subsequently gave her statement before the learned Magistrate. She identified her signatures on her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also identified the accused in Court.
During cross-examination, she stated that the accused was a driver by profession and an alcoholic who used to assault her and their daughter while under the influence of alcohol and that she had previously lodged complaints at the Police Station regarding such assaults. She denied the suggestions that her daughter had not disclosed the incidents, that the accused had not taken the two girls to the jungle or committed any wrongful acts with the victim's friend, that he had not threatened the children or that she had falsely implicated her husband due to previous domestic disputes. She further denied that she had not witnessed any incident or had deposed falsely to implicate the accused.
VIII. PW-5, is the father of the PW-1 and a neighbour of the accused, deposed that he resides adjacent to the accused's house and that his daughter and the accused‟s daughter were friends. PW-5 stated that the accused, being known to the family, took both girls on the pretext of plucking jackfruit and after sending his own daughter back home on the pretext of fetching water and later a bag, asked his minor daughter to remove her clothes and thereafter committed sexual assault by inserting his private part into her private part, coupled with threats to both girls that he would kill them if they disclosed the incident. PW-5 further deposed that the incident came to the notice of the police when the accused‟s wife informed the police station, pursuant to which a call was made to him and he, along with his family, went to the police station where the entire occurrence was narrated. He also identified the accused in court.
In cross-examination, PW-5 candidly admitted that he could not recall the exact date or time of the incident and that he had not personally witnessed the assault, his knowledge being based on the detailed disclosure made by his daughter about fifteen days after the occurrence, wherein she narrated that the accused took both girls to the ground, sent PW-3 to fetch water during which he made the victim remove her clothes, removed his own clothes, touched her chest, inserted his private part in her private part, thereafter masturbated and put his private part in her mouth and finally threatened to cut her neck with a knife if she revealed the incident; he also stated that he himself did not lodge a separate complaint but denied the defence suggestion that no wrong was done to his daughter or that he had been tutored by the police or had deposed falsely.
XI. PW-6, Susheela Bage, deposed that she is presently involved with the Project Access to Justice under PRAYAS and on July 30, 2021 was posted at Child Line, PRAYAS as a team member. On that date they received a call from Pahargaon Police Station asking them to attend the station because two matters concerning two victim girls had been reported and she, along with Project Coordinator one Maria Sheela and team member one Rohita Belung, went to the police station where they met the mother of one victim and thereafter interacted with the second victim girl who told them that her father, R. Muniyaswamy, had committed a wrongful act with her while she was alone at home and her mother, who works at a hospital, was not present and returned only at night. The victim stated that her father attempted to penetrate his private organ into her private part and that he had committed similar wrongful acts against the victim‟s friend herein PW-1. The police recorded the victim‟s statement in the presence of the victim‟s mother and PW-06 signed the statement.
In cross-examination she said she could not recollect the exact time she received the call, could not recall the names of the mothers and denied the suggested facts that she did not visit Pahargaon PS on July 30, 2021, that the second victim did not make the statements attributed to her, that no statement was recorded in her presence, that the statement was prepared in the PRAYAS office at police instruction or that she was tutored by police to give false evidence.
XII. PW-7, Dr. Saheba Mumtaz, deposed that on July 30, 2021 she was posted as Senior Medical Officer at PHC Garacharma. On that day, she medically examined the victim girl, who was brought by the police. During the examination, she conducted both external and genital examination and found erythema over the labia majora, erythema over the labia minora, ruptured hymenal orifice and erythema over the perineum. She did not find any other external injury on the body of the victim. She further stated that she collected various biological samples for forensic examination, including head hair combing for debris, swabs for debris between the fingers, nail swabs and nail clippings of both hands separately, scalp hair cuttings, breast swab, vulval swab and slide, urethral swab and slide, vaginal swab and slide from the posterior fornix, cervical swab and slide, rectal swab and slide, oral swabs and slides from both sides, dental floss from between the last lower teeth on both sides, blood sample on an FTA card for DNA analysis and blood samples for grouping, HIV, VDRL and HBsAg testing. According to her, all the collected samples were handed over to the police personnel. She opined that only genital injury was present on the body of the victim, which indicated forceful penetration. She stated that the seized articles were taken into possession by the police under a seizure memo, on which she identified her signature. During cross-examination, she denied the suggestions that she had not examined the genital part of the victim, that the medical report was prepared at the instance of the police, that the consent of the victim's parents had not been obtained prior to the medical examination or that she had falsely deposed before the Court.
XIV. PW-8, Dr. Jalgandeshwar, deposed that on July 30, 2021 he was serving as Medical Officer at PHC Garacharma. On that date, he medically examined the accused, R. Muniyaswamy, who had been produced before him by S.I. Shilpi Singha of Pahargaon Police Station in connection with Pahargaon P.S. Case No. 66 of 2021. During his deposition, he identified the accused present in Court and further identified the duly attested photocopy of the medical protocol kit report prepared by him in respect of the accused, bearing his seal and signatures, after comparing it with the original lying in Special Case No. 44 of 2021 (ST No. 41 of 2021). In his cross-examination, PW-8 stated that the accused had been brought to him by police personnel and that he was unaware whether the FIR had already been registered at the time of the medical examination. He further deposed that the injury report had been prepared in his own handwriting, while the FIR particulars appearing therein had been filled in by the police personnel. He denied the suggestions that he had not examined the accused on the alleged date, time and place or that he had prepared the medical report merely at the request of the police.
XVI. PW-9, serving as an Inspector in the SP District, South Andaman, Port Blair at the time of his deposition, stated that on September 09, 2021 he was posted as the SHO of Pahargaon Police Station. He deposed that on the said date, the Investigating Officer of Pahargaon PS FIR No. 66/2021 dated July 30, 2021, namely S.I. Shilpi Singha, submitted a report informing him that, during the course of investigation of the said case, another victim girl, had also been found to be a victim of the criminal acts allegedly committed by the accused. Upon perusing the report and the statement of the victim girl, he found sufficient grounds for registration of a case under Sections 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 506 of the IPC. He identified the handwriting and signature of S.I. Shilpi Singha, having worked with her in the discharge of official duties and proved his endorsement on the report. He also proved the formal FIR bearing No. 82 dated September 09, 2021 of Pahargaon Police Station. He further identified the statement of the victim girl. The witness further deposed that since the accused had already been arrested in connection with the earlier case, he was formally shown arrested in the present case as well. Upon completion of the investigation, the case docket was handed over to him by the Investigating Officer, which he thoroughly scrutinized and verified and finding a prima facie case, he submitted Charge Sheet No. 95/2021 dated October 20, 2021 against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 5(m)(l)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 506 of the IPC. During cross-examination, the PW-9 admitted that he had neither visited the place of occurrence nor examined any witness in the present case. He further stated that while the first FIR against the accused had been registered on July 30, 2021, the second FIR was registered on September 09, 2021. He denied the suggestions that he had wrongly charge-sheeted the accused without verifying the truthfulness of the complaint, that the accused was innocent or had been falsely implicated.
XVII. PW-10, P. Neelkanta Rao, deposed that he was serving as Junior Investigator in the Office of the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, Directorate of Health Services, Port Blair and had appeared before the Court pursuant to summons. He stated that he was acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of Shri M.L. Peter, the Registrar of Births and Deaths, having seen him write and sign during the course of his official duties. He further deposed that he had been authorized by Shri M.L. Peter to depose in the present case by an authorization letter dated August 18, 2023. He produced the certified copy of the birth certificate of the victim girl showing her date of birth as October 04, 2012, duly attested by Shri M.L. Peter. He also produced the original birth register maintained in his office and deposed that, as per the register, the birth of the victim girl had been recorded under Registration No. 2336 of 2012 dated October 09, 2012. During cross-examination, he stated that the birth certificate had been issued on June 12, 2018, explaining that the said date represented the computer-generated date whenever the certificate was printed. He further stated that he could not say how many times the birth certificate had been issued or generated, while volunteering that it could be issued any number of times. He also admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the facts of the present case.
XVIII. PW-11, S.I. Shilpi Singha, deposed that at the relevant time she was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Pahargaon and was presently serving as SHO, Police Station Kalighat, North and Middle Andaman. She stated that on September 09, 2021, FIR No. 82/2021 under Sections 5(1)/6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 506 IPC was registered in connection with the offence committed against the victim girl of the present case. She explained that the said FIR was bifurcated from FIR No. 66/2021 after the victim girl, whose statement had been recorded on July 30, 2021 in the presence of her mother, Smti Mariya Sheela, Project Coordinator and Ms. Rohita Belung, Team Member, Prayas Childline, disclosed the commission of the offence against her. She proved her signature on the statement of the victim girl. She further deposed that the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was exhibited as Exhibit P-2 and that she got the victim medically examined at PHC Garacharma and collected the medical examination report. She also collected the evidence collection kit of the victim from the hospital in the presence of Nursing Officer R. Chitra under a seizure list prepared in connection with FIR No. 66/2021. She stated that the present FIR was registered on the basis of her report to the SHO, Police Station Pahargaon. She further deposed that since the accused was common to both FIR Nos. 66/2021 and 82/2021, she had medically examined the accused in FIR No. 66/2021 and obtained the medical report, a copy of which was extracted into the present case and exhibited as Exhibit P-8 collectively. She also stated that she sought verification of the birth certificate of the victim and obtained the attested copy through Letter No. 2511 dated August 25, 2021. She deposed that the site plan prepared in FIR No. 66/2021 was extracted into the present case and marked as Exhibit P-15and that the statements of witnesses recorded in FIR No. 66/2021 were also extracted into the present case after registration of the separate FIR. She correctly identified the accused before the Court and stated that on September 10, 2021 she handed over the case file to S.I. Gracefield for further investigation as directed by the SHO, Police Station Pahargaon. During her cross-examination, she admitted that the alleged incident had occurred in July 2021 whereas the FIR was registered on September 09, 2021 and that the victim's statement as well as her medical examination had been conducted in July 2021. She further admitted that the locality was thickly populated and that she had examined neighbouring witnesses including Shri G. Raju and Smti A. Vanita. She denied the suggestions that the victim's statements were tutored, that the accused had been falsely implicated, that no such incident had occurred or that her investigation was merely a table investigation conducted without visiting the spot. She further stated that the consent of the victim's parents had been obtained by the doctor before the medical examination and admitted that the medical evidence kits of the victim and the accused had not been sent to the CFSL. Upon being recalled for further examination on March 05, 2024, she deposed that during the course of investigation, on July 30, 2021, she had seized a photocopy of the Aadhaar Card of the victim from her mother, in the presence of Maria Sheela and Rohita Belung under a seizure list. In her further cross-examination, she admitted that the photocopy of the Aadhaar Card did not bear the signatures of its producer or the witnesses and that neither the seizure list nor the photocopy contained any endorsement that it had been compared with the original document. She, however, denied the suggestion that the document did not belong to the victim or that no copy of the Aadhaar Card had been seized.
XXI. PW-12, InspectorGracefield, deposed that she was presently posted as Inspector of Police at Police Station Mayabunder, District North and Middle Andaman. She further deposed that on September 10, 2021, while she was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Pahargaon, the investigation of the present case was entrusted to her by the Station House Officer after it was transferred from S.I. Shilpi Singha. According to the witness, on September 13, 2021, she received the order of the Court along with the investigation papers for proceeding further in connection with the victim girl, arising out of FIR No. 66 of 2021. She stated that on September 27, 2021, she received the support person appointed by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC). Thereafter, on September 30, 2021, she addressed a letter to the Station House Officer requesting certified copies of the investigation documents pertaining to FIR No. 66 of 2021 for the purpose of the present case and she received the said certified copies on October01, 2021. PW-12 further deposed that on October 14, 2021, she received the previous crime details of the accused from various Police Stations. She stated that after completing the investigation in all respects, she submitted the case docket to the Station House Officer for filing of the charge-sheet.
During cross-examination, PW-12 stated that she had not recorded the statement of any witness in the present case. She also admitted that she had not visited the place of occurrence as the first Investigating Officer had already done so. She denied the suggestion that she had mechanically submitted the case docket.
XXII. PW-13, Smti K. Sita Laxmi, is a resident of Mauza near Government School, Prothrapur, Police Station Pahargaon, District South Andaman and is presently residing at Prothrapur, District South Andaman. The witness is a Tamil-knowing person, and as she does not sufficiently understand Hindi/English, her evidence was recorded through an interpreter. She deposed that she is the mother of four children, three daughters and one son, and that one criminal case was registered concerning her daughter VG, who is her third child and was about seven years of age at the time of the incident. She stated that the incident occurred during the period of the COVID‑19 pandemic, about three years before her deposition, when her daughter VG suffered from giddiness. She further stated that at that time one lady, namely one Kannagawali, who was then residing in her neighbourhood, informed her that her (Kannagawali‟s) daughter had been subjected to “bad work” by her husband, the appellant, R. Muniyaswamy and that even her daughter VG had also been subjected to “bad work” by the appellant. According to the witness, she was told that the accused removed the pants of her daughter VG and had physical relations with her. At this stage, the Court recorded that the witness started weeping. Upon resumption, the witness further explained that the accused took his penis and put the same in the mouth of her daughter as well as on her vagina and that the accused had also asked the child to take his penis in her hand. She deposed that her daughter VG was under grave fear of the accused, as he had threatened to kill her with a knife if she disclosed the incident to anyone. Thereafter, according to PW 13, a complaint was made to the police and the statement of her daughter VG was recorded in her presence in accordance with what the child narrated and she signed that statement as a witness. PW 13 further deposed that the photocopy of the Aadhaar card of her daughter VG was seized by the police in this case and a seizure list was prepared in that regard. She stated that the statement of her daughter VG, was also recorded before the learned Magistrate. She correctly identified the accused, R. Muniyaswamy, present in Court and stated that when she was residing in rented accommodation earlier, her daughter VG used to go to the house of the accused to play with his daughter. The witness also deposed that a criminal case had been registered against the accused by his own daughter, with whom VG used to play, alleging that the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on his daughter in the same manner as he had done with VG.
In cross-examination, PW 13 stated that she does not know how to read and write Hindi and English. She admitted that she had not seen the incident with her own eyes and that the matter came to light when her daughter suffered giddiness. She stated that she made a complaint to the police and that on that day she saw the complaint, which she understood to be the statement of her daughter VG. She further stated that the police recorded her statement but her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not recorded. She deposed that in the statement initially recorded, her daughter VG did not state the allegations against the accused and that the child disclosed those allegations to her after about ten days. She denied the suggestion that Kannagawali had not told her anything, denied that she was unaware of the contents of the statement of VG, and further denied the suggestion that she had deposed falsely.
35. Having heard the counsel for both parties and carefully scrutinizing the records, this Court conclude that the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated March 22, 2024, of the Additional Sessions Judge‑cum‑Special Judge (POCSO), South Andaman, is without merit. The appellant had been convicted under Sections 5(1)(m) and (n) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. On a thorough appraisal of the evidence, this Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved the appellant‟s guilt.
36. The prosecution‟s case chiefly depends on the testimony of the minor witnesses, PW‑1 and PW‑3. PW‑1, who was eight years old at the time of the incident, gave a detailed and consistent account of the assault. She stated that while she and her friend (PW‑3) were picking jackfruits with the appellant, he took advantage of PW‑3‟s brief absence to sexually assault her and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the episode. Despite vigorous cross‑examination attempting to suggest tutoring or fabrication motivated by family enmity, PW‑1‟s testimony remained steadfast.
37. PW‑3, the appellant‟s daughter, provided corroborative ocular witness evidence. She said she observed the appellant committing “ganda kaam” (wrongful acts) with PW‑1 on two occasions during the jackfruit‑picking outing and further alleged that the appellant subjected her to similar wrongful acts at home when her mother was on night duty. That a child testified against her own father lends weight to her statement, since there is no material to indicate that a child of such tender years would falsely accuse her father of such acts without a factual basis. It is settled law that the unshaken and reliable testimony of a child victim can sustain a conviction without independent corroboration, provided the court is satisfied of its truthfulness. In Sham Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2018) 18 SCC 34 the Supreme Court held:
“6. We are conscious that the courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations or sexual assaults.”
38. The ocular testimony is reinforced by medical evidence from PW‑7, Dr. Saheba Mumtaz. On examination, the medical officer observed erythema of the labia majora and minora, a ruptured hymenal orifice and erythema of the perineum and she opined that these injuries were indicative of forceful penetration. Although the defense argued the medical findings were inconclusive, this Court finds that the objective clinical signs of genital trauma are consistent with the victim‟s account of assault.
39. As to the victim‟s age, the prosecution produced the birth certificate and the original entry in the birth register through PW‑10, an investigator from the Directorate of Health Services, which show the date of birth as October 4, 2012. This confirms that the victim was a minor under twelve years at the time of the offence, bringing the case within the aggravated penetrative sexual assault provisions of the POCSO Act.
40. The appellant‟s counsel raised several procedural and substantive objections that this Court finds unavailing. Firstly, the appellant argued that filing multiple FIRs (Nos. 66/2021 and 82/2021) for the same transaction violated the protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the CrPC. This Court do not accept such contention. The investigation established separate offences against two different victims, PW‑1 and PW‑3, occurring at different times and locations. Even if the matters came to light during the same investigative period, distinct offences against distinct victims require separate charges and proceedings to secure justice for each child.
41. Secondly, the defense pointed to inconsistencies in dates and times given by witnesses and to a delay in reporting. The court must take into account the psychological impact on child victims in sexual assault cases. Both PW‑1 and PW‑3 testified that the appellant threatened to kill or cut their throats if they spoke, which reasonably explains the delay in disclosure. Minor inconsistencies about precise dates or colours of clothing are to be expected when children recount traumatic events months or years later and do not fundamentally undermine the prosecution‟s otherwise strong case.
42. Thirdly, the appellant contended that the investigation was defective because forensic kits were not sent to the CFSL and independent neighbours were not examined. Though the Investigating Officer (PW‑11) admitted the medical kits were not forwarded for forensic analysis, this Court holds that deficiencies in investigation do not automatically benefit the accused where the core facts are proved by reliable ocular and medical evidence. The presence of genital injuries and the consistent statements of the victims carry decisive probative value despite such investigative omissions.
43. Under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, once the foundational facts of a sexual act against a child are proved, the law mandates a presumption that the accused committed the offence, unless the contrary is established. The appellant did not discharge this burden. His defence that his alcoholism and alleged domestic disputes prompted false implication by his wife is inadequate. While PW‑3 and PW‑4 admitted the appellant‟s drinking and prior domestic quarrels, there is no material to show that the wife or neighbours coached two young children to concoct detailed accounts of sexual penetration. The suggested motive of domestic enmity is too tenuous to explain the victims‟ consistent testimonies and the medical evidence of penetration.
44. The Learned Trial Court correctly sifted peripheral discrepancies from substantive evidence. The appellant, who occupied a position of trust as a father, committed a serious breach that warrants severe penal response to deter such familial sexual crimes. Taking together the consistent ocular testimonies of PW‑1 and PW‑3, the medical evidence of forceful penetration and the documentary proof of the victims‟ ages, this Court finds the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. No procedural irregularity has produced a miscarriage of justice or prejudiced the appellant‟s right to a fair trial.
45. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the well‑reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, POCSO, Port Blair, on March 22, 2024, are hereby affirmed.
46. The appeal is, therefore, devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant.
47. Copy of the judgement along with Lower Court Records shall be sent back to the trial court at once for necessary compliance.
48. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all requisite legal formalities.
