Conviction based on consistent testimony of minor victim affirmed; life sentence modified to twenty years imprisonment.

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for raping his minor niece on the night of Diwali in 2018 at his residence.

The victim’s grandmother filed an FIR after the victim complained of abdominal pain and later revealed the assault.

The prosecution relied on the testimony of the victim (PW-1), medical evidence including an ossification test (Ex.P-25), and testimonies of family members.

The Trial Court sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The appellant challenged the conviction, alleging false implication and lack of corroboration.

1. Whether the Trial Court correctly determined the victim to be a minor on the date of the incident

2. Whether the prosecution proved the charge of rape beyond a reasonable doubt based on the testimony of the victim and medical evidence

3. Whether the sentence of imprisonment for the "remainder of natural life" was appropriate under the circumstances

Section 375 of the IPC defining rape

Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act defining a "child"

"sterling witness" principle from Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi, emphasizing that a victim's consistent and truthful testimony can sustain a conviction without corroboration

Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan and Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, asserting that a rape victim is not an accomplice and her evidence should be treated with the same weight as an injured witness

Section 376(3) IPC, which prescribes a minimum of twenty years of rigorous imprisonment for raping a girl under twelve

The High Court found the victim's testimony (PW-1) to be of high caliber, noting she remained consistent during cross-examination and wept while describing the assault.

The court rejected the defense's argument regarding lack of corroboration, holding that a victim’s testimony does not require external support if it is inherently credible.

Regarding the victim's age, the court relied on the ossification test conducted by Dr. B.N. Dewangan (PW-10), which placed her age between 13.5 and 14.5 years, confirming she was a minor.

The Court determined that the Trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence to establish the commission of the offence under the POCSO Act.

However, while reviewing the sentence, the Court noted that while the offence was grave, a modification from "remainder of natural life" to the statutory minimum for such aggravated cases was warranted under the judicial discretion provided by Section 376(3) IPC.

The Court partially allowed the appeal only to the extent of the sentence, modifying it from imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life to rigorous imprisonment for twenty years.

The fine and default sentence remained unchanged.