Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In her cross examination, PW-1 stated that the appellant used to drink Page No.# 8/20 liquor and even got intoxicated. She admitted that she did not see the incident.

19. The evidence of PW-2, who is the 4 year old victim, is to the effect that she knew the appellant as he used to come to their house and speak to her parents. PW-2 further stated that her mother had gone to the spring and while she was away, the appellant had come to their house. He lay down on a long chair. Thereafter, he took out his penis and tried to insert it into the victim's vagina. The appellant also threatened the victim with a knife and told her that he would slaughter her and bury her under the ground if she told anyone about the incident. PW-2 then stated that the appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. Further, the appellant had also put his penis into the mouth of the victim, which was really bad. He also inserted his finger into her vagina and it caused a lot of pain. PW-2 further stated that she told her parents and paternal grandmother about what the appellant had done. Her mother checked her private parts and took her to the hospital and also to the Police Station.

In her cross examination, PW-2 stated that when the appellant touched her vagina, only the two of them were present in the house.

20. In her statement made under Section 164 CrPC, the victim stated that the appellant had inserted his finger into her vagina and that the appellant had put his penis into her mouth. This statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. corroborates PW-2's evidence that the appellant inserted his finger into her vagina and that he had put his penis into her mouth. However, the victim had not made any statement under Section 164 CrPC that the appellant had tried to insert his penis into her vagina, though the testimony of the victim before the Trial Court is to the effect that not only did the appellant try to insert his penis into her vagina, but his penis also penetrated her vagina.

22. In the testimony of the victim, it has been recorded that the appellant tried to insert his penis into the victim's vagina. One sentence later, it has again been recorded by the learned Trial Court that the appellant had inserted his penis inside the victim's vagina. This discrepancy in our view seems to be a typographical error, in view of the fact that the victim has apparently said two different things in her testimony, i.e. on one hand the appellant had tried to insert his private parts into the vagina, while on the other hand the appellant had inserted his private parts into the victim's vagina. This in our view appears to be due to the fact that the insertion of the appellant's penis, as per the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, is into the mouth of the victim. In any event when the evidence that the appellant had inserted his finger into the vagina of the victim is corroborated by her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C and the medical evidence, we find that the offence under Section 3(b) read with Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act, 2012 has been made out.

39. In the present case, the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her testimony during trial are slightly different to the effect that in her testimony the victim (PW-2) stated that the appellant had tried to insert her penis into her vagina and thereafter, stated that the appellant had inserted his penis inside her vagina, besides also inserting his finger in her vagina. This insertion of the penis into the vagina is not corroborated by her statement given under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As stated in the earlier part of the judgment, this discrepancy appears to be due to a typographical error where the insertion of the appellant's penis was not into the vagina, but into the mouth of the victim. However, even if it held that there was no mistake in the recording of the evidence, the same cannot help the cause of the appellant. This is due to the fact it is proved that the appellant inserted his penis into the mouth of the victim and also inserted his fingers into the vagina of the victim. Thus the appellant is guilty of committing the offence under section 3(b) and 5(m) of the POCSO Act. In the case of R. Shaji Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 266, it has been held that statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used for both corroboration and contradiction.