The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence handed down by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati. The appellant was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and relevant sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl in 2017. The appellant argued that the victim's testimony was not corroborated by independent evidence and that there were procedural lapses in the application of the POCSO Act. However, the court found the evidence, including medical reports and the victim's consistent statements, to be credible and sufficient to uphold the conviction.

1. Background of the Case:

• The incident occurred on October 7, 2017, when the 13-year-old victim was allegedly sexually assaulted by the appellant at his residence. The victim reported the crime to her parents, leading to the registration of a criminal case and subsequent conviction by the trial court.

2. Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant's defense centered around the lack of independent witnesses, claiming that the victim and her parents were interested parties. The appellant also questioned the victim's age and argued that procedural lapses under the POCSO Act rendered the conviction invalid.

3. Prosecution’s Case:

• The prosecution presented medical evidence confirming the assault and documentation proving the victim's age to be under 18 at the time of the incident. The prosecution also highlighted the promptness of the complaint and the consistency in the victim's testimony.

4. Court’s Analysis:

• The court carefully examined the evidence, including the victim's testimony, medical reports, and radiological examination, concluding that the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court dismissed the appellant's claims regarding the victim's age and the supposed procedural lapses.

5. Final Judgment:

• The appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld. The court emphasized that the evidence presented was credible, and the defense's arguments did not undermine the prosecution's case. The appellant’s conviction for the offence under the IPC and POCSO Act was fully justified, and no interference was warranted.