Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that no injury of any kind was found upon body of minor prosecutrix and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Appellant was convicted by learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Chamba (H.P.) under Section 8 of POCSO Act 2012. POCSO Act is a special Act.

POCSO Act was enacted to provide protection to minor .

Sexual assalt is defined under Section 7 of POCSO Act 2012.

14. As per Section 7 of POCSO Act whoever with sexual intent touches the vagina of minor prosecutrix then offence under Section 7 of POCSO Act 2012 relating to sexual assault is made out. In present case minor prosecutrix PW2 has specifically stated in positive manner that accused caught her and took her to a dilapidated old house and thereafter opened her trouser and thereafter accused opened his own trouser and thereafter accused placed his hand upon vagina of minor prosecutrix. It is held that even touching the vagina of minor prosecutrix with sexual intent is sexual assault under Section 7 of POCSO Act 2012. Sexual assault with sexual intent is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt as per .

down for appreciation of evidence and it is a question of fact and each case has to be decided on the fact as they proved in a particular case.

22. Even as per Section 30 of POCSO Act 2012 there is presumption of culpable mental state of accused and Special of Court is under legal obligation to presume the existence of such mental state. Accused did not adduce any positive oral rt and documentary evidence on record in order to prove that he had no such mental state relating to sexual assault under POCSO Act 2012. It is well settled law that in sexual assault cases direct evidence is not available beyond evidence of victim. It is well settled law that testimony of victim in sexual assault cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of statement of prosecutrix Court should not find difficulty to act upon testimony of prosexutrix alone to convict accused person if testimony of victim of sexual assault inspires confidence and is reliable. Corroborative evidence is not imperative component in every sexual assault case. Corroboration is not sine qua non for conviction in sexaul assault case.

24. Case law cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant i.e. (2014)5 SCC 389 titled Radhey Shyam vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012)8 SCC 73 titled K. Venkateshwarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013)11 SCC 150 titled Hamza Humammedkutty alias Mani and others vs. State of Kerala,(2006)3 SCC 643 titled Mullaperiyar .

Environmental Protection Forum vs. Union of India and others, (2009)5 SCC 740 titled Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod vs.State of Gujarat are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of present case. Facts of present case and facts of cases cited supra are different. In the cases cited supra by of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant case was not registered under POCSO Act 2012 but present case is rt registered under POCSO Act 2012 which is a special Act. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra point No.1 is answered in negative against appellant.