Judgment & Order (Cav)

M. Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Dr. B.N. Gogoi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate and Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam assisted by Ms. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Ms. M. Barman, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent no.2, who is the informant (mother of the victim).

2. The present appeal is against the impugned judgment dated 14.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar in Special (POCSO) Case No.28/2022, arising out of Sivasagar P.S. Case No.129/2022, by which the appellant Madhurjya Hazarika has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, which means imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), in default rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten) years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months under Section 366 of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR dated 18.03.2022 was submitted by the Prosecution Witness (PW) No.2, who is the mother of the victim to the Officer-in-Charge, Sivasagar Police Station, stating that her daughter had left their home at around 01:00 p.m. on Friday, i.e. 18.03.2022 to celebrate Holi at a nearby location. However, she had not returned home even till 07:00 p.m. Despite making an extensive search for her, they had not been able to locate the victim. The FIR stated that her daughter was 13 years of age with a height of approximately 4 feet. She was fat and had a fair complexion. Pursuant to the FIR, Sivasagar P.S. Case No.129/2022 under Section 366 of IPC was registered and one Manurupa Chutia (PW-9) was entrusted to investigate the case.

4. After taking the statement of PW-2, PW-9 seized the Birth Certificate of the victim and proceeded towards the house of the informant. PW-9 then recorded the statements of PW Nos.3, 4 & 8. PW-9 was thereafter informed on the next day about 10:00 a.m over phone that the appellant had taken away her daughter and that the victim daughter was with the appellant. The informant thereafter brought the victim and the appellant to the police station on being informed by PW-9 to bring them to the police station. After interrogating the victim and the appellant, PW-9 sent the victim to One Stop Centre as it was already evening, due to which she was not sent to hospital, as Doctors were not usually available for medical examination at night.

5. After sending the victim for medical examination and examining the witnesses, PW-9 submitted a Charge-sheet against the appellant and the coaccused one Sahil Ahmed on finding prima facie case against them under Section 366 of IPC. The Charge-sheet also found a prima facie case under Section 376(3) IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the present appellant and against the co-accused Sahil Ahmed under Section 109 of IPC read with Section 17 of POCSO Act.

6. After the case was committed to the learned Trial Court, Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 366/376(3) of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and against the co-accused Sahil Ahmed, Charge under Section 366A/376(3)/109 of IPC read with Section 6/17 of the POCSO Act was framed. The appellant and the co-accused Sahil Ahmed having pleading not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

7. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 9 Prosecution Witnesses (PWs), one Defence Witness (DW) and two Court Witnesses (CWs). Thereafter examination of the appellant and the co-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was conducted. The learned Trial Court thereafter found that evidence against the co-accused Sahil Ahmed fell short of the provisions under Section 366A/376(3)/109 of IPC read with Section 6/17 of the POCSO Act. Accordingly, the co-accused Sahil Ahmed was acquitted of the charges framed against him. On the other hand, the learned Trial Court found that the prosecution has been able to successfully prove the offence under Section 366/376(3) of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the present appellant. As such, the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 266 of IPC.

8. The evidence of PW-1 who is the victim aged 13 years, is to the effect that she knew the accused Sahil and used to talk to him over phone. Sahil used to make conference calls wherein the appellant also joined him. PW-1 stated that Sahil used to make her talk with the appellant during the conference call. However, she had not met the appellant before the date of the incident, which was the day of Holi. On that day, at about 10 a.m., while playing with her friends, Sahil asked her over the phone where she was. On telling Sahil, Sahil came to her on a bike along with one named Manash, whom she did not know. Thereafter, they went away. After some time, when she was about to go home, Sahil called her and told her that he was coming with the appellant. Sahil also told her to wait near Borphukuri. Sahil and the appellant thereafter came in a white Bolero, which the appellant was driving. She saw the appellant for the first time that day. PW-1 then got into the vehicle to go for a ride, as Sahil had asked her to get inside the vehicle. After going to various places, the appellant dropped PW-1 at Jamuna Road. While on her way home, PW-1 received a call on her mobile phone from an unknown number. On answering the call, she identified the caller as the appellant, from his voice. The appellant then asked her as to whether she had reached home, to which PW-1 told him that she was about to reach her home. The appellant then told her to wait for him and not to go home. The appellant then came alone in a Bolero and asked her to go for a ride. Though she initially refused, PW-1 got inside the vehicle, on the insistence of the appellant. After going to various different places, the appellant took her to a place where many other vehicles were parked. There were no persons nearby. At the same time, her mobile kept ringing, as her mother was continuously calling her. When she tried to answer the calls, the appellant snatched the mobile phone from her and disconnected the calls. The appellant then told PW-1 to sit in the back seat. When asked the reason for the same, the appellant told her that other persons who were nearby, who would see her if she sat in the front seat. She then went to the back seat of the vehicle and the appellant followed suit. The appellant then kissed her forcefully and though PW- 1 tried to leave the vehicle, the appellant caught her. The appellant then took off the clothes of PW-1 and made her naked. The appellant thereafter took out a condom and put it on his private parts, which he inserted into her private parts. PW-1 further stated that the appellant repeated the act and took out 4 condoms. Though PW-1 resisted, the appellant forced himself upon her. The appellant also bit her chest, neck and other parts of her body. She sustained injury in that process and teeth marks remained in her body for several days. PW-1 further stated that the appellant kept her inside the vehicle for the whole night and due to the rape, which hurt her private parts, blood came out from her private parts. The appellant then dropped her near Buddha Mandir near the Commerce College, Sivasagar early next morning. The appellant then told her to wait there, as he would come back after freshening up in his house and thereafter he would take her to Jorhat and marry her. After the appellant went away, she received a call from her mother, asking her where she was the whole night and why she had kept her phone switched off. PW-1 stated that she could not tell her mother that the appellant had switched off her phone. However, on hearing the voice of her mother, she started crying, to which her mother asked her, as to what had happened. She then told her mother about meeting the appellant and that he had raped her and disconnected her calls. PW-1 then told her mother the identity of the appellant and that he used to drive the vehicle of the Superintendent of police and that his house was in Pragati. Though her mother had asked for her location, PW-1 did not tell her mother about her location. As her mother was crying, PW-1 stated that she could not face her mother. Thereafter, the appellant called her, telling her that PW-1’s mother had gone to the appellant’s house and thereafter the appellant disconnected the call and blocked the number of PW-1. PW-1 then called Sahil and told him that she had been the whole night with the appellant and that the appellant had blocked her calls. Sahil then informed her that the appellant was in his house and that he had taken the Bolero for washing. On Sahil giving the phone to the appellant, the appellant told PW-1 that he would not come to take her, as PW- 1’s mother had gone to the appellant’s house and that PW-1’s mother had said that she would lodge a case. The appellant then disconnected the call. Though PW-1 called Sahil to be able to talk to the appellant, the appellant refused to talk to PW-1. PW-1 then stated that her mother called her and told her to bring the appellant along. She thereafter called the appellant and found that she had become unblocked. PW-1 then told the appellant that her mother would withdraw the case, if the appellant would go along with the PW-1 to her home. The appellant then told her that he would be coming over after having his food. The appellant then arrived in the same Bolero vehicle along with Sahil and Manash. Thereafter, the appellant and PW-1 went to PW-1’s house in a battery rickshaw, while Sahil and Manash followed them in the Bolero. On reaching the victim’s house, PW-1’s mother asked the appellant why he had slept with PW-1. The appellant then told PW’s mother that he considered PW-1 as his sister. Thereafter, the mother of PW-1 took the appellant, Sahil and Manash to go to the Sivasagar Police Station with her. In the Police Station, PW-9 (I.O.) and one male Police Officer asked PW-1 as to what had happened to her, on seeing teeth marks on her neck. PW-1 then disclosed the entire incident to them in the presence of her mother and grandmother. PW-1 was thereafter sent to Joysagar Hospital for medical examination and was kept at an One-Stop Centre for the night. On the next day, she was forwarded to the Court for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which she exhibited in Court. In her evidence, PW-1 further stated that the appellant used to declare his love for her during the earlier conference calls, which she refused. PW-1 further stated that she requested Sahil not to give her mobile phone number to the appellant. She also stated that the appellant’s mother had offered them money to withdraw the case and that the family members of Sahil had come to the neighbors’ house and had offered them money also. Further, the mother of Sahil had requested PW-1’s mother to withdraw the case.

In her cross-examination, PW-1 stated that there was a love relation between her and the appellant, as the appellant had proposed to her with a rose flower, which she accepted on the day of the incident. She denied the suggestion that she had falsely implicated the appellant with the charge of rape. She also stated that she did not tell the police that she suffered bleeding from her vagina, as she was under fear, due to the fact that the appellant had threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone or something would happen to her. Besides, the appellant had said that he treated her as his sister. She also denied the suggestion that she was 18 years old.

9. The evidence of PW-2 is to the effect that the victim (PW-1) was her daughter and on the date of giving her evidence, the victim was 13 years old and studying in Class-VIII, inasmuch as, her date of birth was 05.07.2008. PW-2 stated that she had lodged the FIR on 18.03.2022. As her daughter, who had gone out to play holy with her friends on 18.03.2022, had not returned home, she had gone to Sivagar Police Station at 4 p.m. and lodged an FIR. Before going to the police station she had tried to contact her daughter over phone several times, but she was not reachable. During the night PW-1’s phone was switched off. Though PW-2 and her husband searched for her daughter the whole night, they could not find her. Only at about 5 a.m., the victim’s phone started ringing. When she asked PW-1 as to why her phone was switched off, PW-1 told her that her phone was not with her. PW-2 also stated that PW-1 narrated the incident of how she had been raped by the appellant. PW-2 further stated that the mother of the appellant had held her feet and asked her to give her daughter in marriage to the appellant, as the appellant treated PW-1 as his younger sister and that he had done no wrong to her. PW-2 further stated that her daughter suffered pain in her entire body and it lasted for about 20-25 days. Her monthly period also stopped due to which she consulted Dr. Pranab Jyoti Dutta, who told her not to worry. When PW-1’s period was delayed by about 20 days, PW-2 brought a pregnancy test kit, after which she came to know that her daughter was pregnant. Thereafter, Dr. Pranab Jyoti Dutta prescribed two pills and after 5 days of taking the pills, her daughter’s monthly period returned. PW- 2 exhibited the birth certificate of her daughter as MO1. She also stated that her daughter stopped attending school out of fear of being humiliated by her school friends. Further, the mother of the appellant and Sahil disturbed her and her daughter.

10. The evidence of PW-3, who is the grandmother of the victim is hearsay evidence. However, PW-3 stated that when she saw PW-1 in the morning, after the incident, she seemed to be mentally tense and her clothes were not in a proper state. Before going to the police station the victim changed her clothes, which PW-3 washed. PW-3 found blood stains in her panty and jeans which she had been wearing. Thereafter, PW-2 informed PW-3 that the appellant had raped PW-1 several times inside a vehicle. She also stated that she had accompanied PW-2 to the police station.

11. The evidence of PW-4, who is the elder sister of the victim’s mother, is to the effect that at about 3:30 p.m., PW-2 had called her and told her that her daughter had not come home. PW-2 then informed PW-4 that the victim was not answering her phone calls. On searching for the victim in her friends’ house and not finding her there, PW-4 went with PW-2 to lodge a missing person’s entry in the police station. PW-4 further stated that she came to know from PW- 2 that the victim had picked up her call at about 4 a.m. the next morning and that the appellant had kept her inside a vehicle. As PW-2 felt uncomfortable in disclosing any further information about the incident, PW-4 did not ask for any further information. In the morning, the victim along with the appellant and his mother came to their house. Another boy also came along with them, whom she could not recollect. Thereafter, PW-2 took them to the police station. Though the mother of the appellant said that a case should not be lodged, PW-2 took them to the police station. PW-4 further stated that the victim was 13 years of age and she was studying in Class-VII.

In her cross-examination, PW-4 stated that the victim discontinued attending her school after the incident.

12. The evidence of PW-5 is to the effect that he knew both the informant and the victim. He also knew the appellant, who drove a vehicle under the police department at Sivasagar. He stated that PW-9 came to the police reserve, where he was a constable and enquired about the vehicle that the appellant had been driving. On pointing out the same, PW-9 seized the said vehicle.

In his cross-examination, PW-5 stated that the vehicle was in the name of the appellant and it was kept under their zimma. The fuel for the vehicle was provided by the police department and it was only used for official duty. On 18.03.2022, the said vehicle was taken for night duty and he could not recollect for whose duty the vehicle had been allotted.

13. The evidence of PW-6 is to the effect that he was a police Home Guard working at Sivasagar and that PW-9 had seized a Bolero vehicle from the police reserve on 22.03.2022.

14. The evidence of PW-7 is to the effect that she was working as Senior Medical and Health Officer at Sivasagar Civil Hospital on 21.03.2022. On that day, she examined the victim (PW-1) and she did not find any marks of violence on the body of the victim. However, the hymen was absent. Her opinion, after a radiological examination and ultrasonography of the victim had been done, was that she was below 18 years of age and that she was not carrying any pregnancy during the time of examination. There was also no sign of recent sexual intercourse or injury to her private parts or body.

In her cross-examination, PW-7 stated that the age of the victim could be above 13 years, though she was not sure about it.

15. The evidence of PW-8, who is the step-father of the victim, is to the effect that the victim did not return on the night of Holi. Though his wife had tried to contact the victim, the victim’s phone was found to be switched off. It was only at about 4 a.m. on the next day that the wife of PW-8 could contact the victim. Thereafter, PW-8 and his wife went to the house of the appellant located behind the S.P. office. There they met the elder brother and sister-in-law of the appellant and asked them whether the appellant had brought the victim home. They then informed PW-8 and his wife that the appellant had not come home with their daughter. They also stated that the appellant had a girlfriend whom he used to take home at times. Thereafter, PW-8 and his wife went back home and at about 8 a.m., the appellant and his step-daughter came home.

16. The evidence of PW-9, who is the Investigating Officer, is to the effect that the O/c of the Sivasagar Police Station had entrusted him for investigating the FIR that had been filed on 18.03.2022 by PW-2. He seized the birth certificate of the victim and interrogated the informant and recorded the statement. He also recorded the statement of all the other witnesses. He also stated that as it was already evening, he could not send the victim to hospital. So, he kept her at a One-stop Centre for one night. On the next day, the victim was sent for medical examination. He also ensured that the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Court. He also seized the vehicle which was used by the appellant for committing the crime.

In his cross-examination, PW-9 stated that he did not seize any wearing apparels of the victim for examination. On finding a prima facie case under Section 366/376(3) of IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the appellant and under Section 366/109 of IPC read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act against Sahil Ahmed, he submitted the charge-sheet.

17. The evidence of the victim (PW-1) is very detailed and exhaustive. There is nothing to doubt the veracity of the statement of the victim. She has given a detailed testimony of what had happened on that particular day and night. Keeping in view the testimony of the victim’s mother, grandmother and her aunty (PW-4), we do not find any reason not to accept her testimony. The testimony of the victim appears to be truthful and in our view, it is not tutored. Further, the birth certificate of the victim girl having been exhibited (MO1) showed that the victim was born on 05.07.2008.

18. The evidence of DW-1, who is the appellant, is to the effect that on 18.03.2022, at about 9 a.m., he went to Sivasagar town with his friends and went home at 4 p.m. As he was told that he would be having night duty, he went to the office to collect petrol coupon, at which time he met the co-accused Sahil. Sahil then asked him to accompany him to meet his friend, who was a girl at Jamuna Road. Thereafter, Sahil, the girl (victim) and himself went to his office. He again went to his office at 9 p.m. DW-1 stated that thereafter, he was in his office till 12 midnight and thereafter, he returned home. He then met one of his friends on the road and played with his friends. In the morning at about 4 a.m., the victim called him over phone. Thereafter, his brother woke him up and told that he had been called to his office. When he was about to wash his face, the victim’s mother came to their house and searched for the appellant. On DW- 1 identifying himself to the victim’s mother as the appellant, the victim’s mother asked him whether he knew the victim and whether he had taken her on the previous day. DW-1 (appellant) then told the victim’s mother that he had met the victim in the evening of the previous day, but did not take her. Thereafter, he went to his office. The victim’s mother then talked with the appellant’s elder brother. The appellant then went to the house of co-accused on his way to the office. DW-1 (appellant) then told Sahil to tell the victim’s mother that he had not taken the victim. DW-1 (appellant) also told Sahil that the victim had declared her love for the appellant, which he had not reciprocated. Thereafter, the victim had falsely made a case against the appellant. DW-1 (appellant) then told Sahil to tell the victim to go home and the victim had told him that she was in the house of one Momi Begum at Jamuna Road. On DW-1 and Sahil going back to DW-1’s house, Sahil then asked the victim to return home. However, the victim told Sahil that everyone would beat her in her house and that she was not going back to her house. Thereafter, in a white coloured vehicle of a friend, the appellant along with Sahil and Manash went to Jamuna Road to pick up the victim. On the victim coming out from the house of Momi Begum, the appellant took the victim home in a battery rickshaw. On reaching the house of the victim, the victim’s mother told DW-1 (appellant) to take custody and responsibility of the victim, which was refused. Thereafter, the victim’s mother told DW-1 (appellant) to say everything in the police station. Sahil and Manash were then sent back from the police station.

In his cross-examination, DW-1(appellant) stated that he used to drive a Bolero in the police station under a contract from January, 2022. The duties were allotted by the MTO Branch and that he had to put his signature on the attendance register everyday. DW-1 denied the suggestion that after he dropped the victim at Jamuna Road, he had again called her and took her up in his vehicle. He also denied the suggestion that he raped the victim and that he had dropped her in the early morning hours near the Borpukhuri in front of the Buddha Mandir.

19. The evidence of the Court Witness No. 1 and Court Witness No. 2 is to the effect that the mother of the appellant had applied for a birth certificate on 04.04.2022 and in the birth certificate of the appellant, his date of birth has been recorded as 01.01.2005. Their further evidence is that the appellant took admission in “Ko” class in No.502 Jengonikatia Balika Prathomik Vidyalaya in the year 2005. At that time, CW-2 was an Assistant Teacher of the school and she taught the appellant. The appellant was known as Madhurjya Saikia in the school and till Class-IV his name in the school record was recorded as Madhurjya Saikia. However, in Class-V, his name was entered as Madhurjya Hazarika. CW-2 further stated that the appellant passed Class-V from her school in December, 2011. Further as per the admission register of the school, the date of birth of the appellant was 13.01.2001.

20. On considering the evidence of CW-1 & 2, we are of the view that if the appellant passed Class-V in December, 2011, he would have been approximately 9 to 10 years. As the incident occurred on 18.03.2022, the appellant would have been no younger than 20 years on 18.03.2022.

21. The appellant, in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., had given an explanation in response to question No. 42 that on the previous day at 6.30 pm, he had dropped the victim home and he did not know what happened thereafter. The appellant, in his explanation to question No. 61, had admitted to the fact that he had taken the victim home in a battery rickshaw. He also stated that the vicitm’s mother had asked him to take custody of her daughter, which he refused. As can be seen from the examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, he has denied being with the victim on the night of 18.03.2022 and having sex with her.

22. On perusing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which is to the effect that the appellant had taken the victim in a bolero vehicle and had sex with her multiple times during the night, coupled with the fact that the victim’s mother had also lodged an FIR/Missing Report on 18.03.2022, i.e., prior to the rape having been committed, we do not find any ground to doubt the veracity of the evidence of PW Nos. 1, 2 & 4. Though the victim has stated that the appellant had bitten her on her chest, neck and other parts of her body and that the bite marks remained in her body for several days, the doctor, in her evidence and medical report, has not mentioned any injury on the body of the victim. A bite mark can be considered as an injury if it is a significant one, if it involves skin cuts, swelling and bruising of the area. Bite marks without any injury to the skin may not be considered to be an injury and as such, when there is nothing to show that there has been any swelling or bruising or cut on the skin of the victim, the bite mark on the skin may not amount to an injury.

23. In the present case, PW-1 has not stated that there was any swelling, bruising or tear on the skin and as such, it is possible that a mark without tear or bruising to the skin may not be considered to be a major injury, though teeth marks may be there. In any event, the testimony of the victim, in our view, appears to be truthful and voluntary. In our view, non-mentioning of a minor injury on the skin of the victim by the Doctor does not mean that the appellant had not bitten the body of the victim.

In the case of Lok Mal @ Loko vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , reported in (2025) 4 SCC 470, the Supreme Court has held that the absence of injury marks in the medical evidence cannot be a reason to discard the reliable prosecution evidence. It is not necessary in every rape case, there has to be an injury to the private parts.

24. In the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 387, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc., the Court is duty bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a victim should not be a ground to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration, unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The Court may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the victim is as reliable as that of an injured witness, as she is not an accomplice.

25. In the case of State of Orissa vs. Thakara Besra, reported in (2002) 9 SCC 86, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that rape is not a physical assault, rather it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non-examination of the other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, as they are not the witnesses of the commission of the offence.

26. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Roghubir Singh, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 622, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that evidence has to be weighed and not counted.

27. In the case of Rai Sandeep vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 22 held as follows:-

                   “22. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.”

28. In the instant case, the evidence of the victim that she has been out the whole night is clearly corroborated by the fact that an FIR/missing report had been made by her mother on the evening of 18.03.2022. There was no reason for the victim to have fabricated a story against the appellant to the effect that they were together whole night. There had also been a search for the victim. The behavior of the appellant in taking the victim back to her home the next morning, after getting a call from the victim, clearly proves the authenticity of the testimony of the victim girl that they had been together the whole night. Further, there was no reason for the victim’s mother to have gone to the appellant’s house the next morning, soon after the victim told her mother that she had been with the appellant whole night. Also, the victim could not answer her mother’s phone call, as her phone had been switched off by the appellant. There is nothing in the evidence of the witnesses in their cross-examination, to show that money had not been offered to the family of the victim, for withdrawing the case. No denial of the same had been made by the defence/appellant by leading evidence. There is also no denial of the evidence that the mother of the appellant had prayed for forgiveness from the family of the victim and that a proposal for marriage had been made by the mother of the appellant with the victim, by leading evidence.

29. In the case of Deepak Kr. Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh, SLP(Criminal)(D) No. 26453/2025, the Supreme Court has held that the testimony of the prosecutix alone may be sufficient for convicting an accused, if the same is cogent and consistent. In this regard, it has relied upon the decision of another Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Manga Singh, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 759.

30. On considering the facts of this case in its entirety, there is a lurking suspicion in our minds that the victim may also have been a willing partner to the events that occurred on that fateful night with the appellant. However, keeping in view the fact that the victim was only 13 to 14 years old on that fateful night as per her birth certificate, which has been exhibited, her consent, if any, was immaterial, as a minor cannot give consent.

31. Consequently, in view of the reasons stated above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

32. Send back the TCR.

33. In appreciation of the assistance provided by the learned Legal Aid Counsel, her fees should be paid by the Assam State Legal Services Authority as per the norms.