JUDGMENT : RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J. 1. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and an order passed by the Court of Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge at North and Middle Andaman, Mayabunder, dated March 25, 2021 in Special POCSO Case No. 35 of 2020, convicting the appellant under Sections 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO’) Act, 2012 read with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- only in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment of a year. 2. The genesis of the prosecutrix case originates when she, the youngest sister of the accused person’s wife, lodged a written statement with the Billiground Police Station (BSP), stating that the accused (herein the appellant), her brother-in-law, touched her breast and forcefully committed physical contact on three occasions while she was staying at their house in 2020. She confided in her elder sister about the incident, but her sister was intimidated by the accused and did not disclose the matter to anyone. The victim was also sexually exploited by another person named one Sourav Mondal. Based on her statement in that case, an FIR was registered against the accused under section 3/4/5/6/7/8/21 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with section 376/506 of the IPC. 3. Following the registration of the FIR, the investigating officer, SI Arothi Roy, conducted an investigation, which included visiting the place of occurrence, examining witnesses, conducting searches and collecting medical reports of both the victim and the accused. Upon completion of the investigation, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Billiground PS submitted a charge sheet against the accused under the relevant sections of the POCSO Act, 2012 and IPC. 4. A designated Special Court under the provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012 took cognizance of the offense as per section 33(1) of the said Act. The accused persons (herein the appellant and his wife) were produced before the court and the charges under Section 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 376/506 of the IPC were framed against the appellant and under Section 21 and 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against his wife Sulata Mondal which were read out and explained to them. The accused pleaded not guilty and opted for a trial. The accused pleaded not guilty and opted for a trial. In the course of trial, prosecution examined ten (10) witnesses and exhibited number of documents as Exhibits 1-11 respectively. However, the learned court ultimately passed an order convicting the accused person, herein the appellant and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and acquitted the wife of the accused. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment/Order passed by the Special Court, the appellant preferred the present appeal. 5. The Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that the victim girl had previously instigated another criminal proceeding, leading to the conviction of a different accused, one Sourav Mondal under section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. It was from the victim girl’s statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr. P.C in that particular case that the current sets of facts were unveiled. The victim girl has exhibited inconsistent stances on different occasions throughout the legal process. The appellant in the present case has been wrongfully implicated due to his knowledge concerning the association between the victim and one Sourav Mondal. 6. The learned Counsel representing the State contends that no animosity could be established by leading cogent evidence by the appellant other than suggestion of animosity. Furthermore, the contention that the prosecutrix herein the victim girl may have been involved in habitual sexual activity does not undermine her case. Even if it is proven that the prosecutrix herein the victim girl is accustomed to sexual encounters, it does not negate the credibility of her testimony more so when the medical reports which have been relied upon are well proven. It has been further submitted that the victim has no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating officer cannot affect the credibility of the statement of the victim. 7. We have heard learned Advocates for the parties and have gone through the evidence in record meticulously which reveals as follows: (I) PW-1 is the victim. The present case transpired from another case filed by the victim, involving allegations of sexual harassment against one Sourav Mondal, in which the accused acted as an ocular witness. According to the victim’s testimony, she had filed a case against the appellant, Nando Kumar Mondal, herein the accused who is her brother-in-law. The present case transpired from another case filed by the victim, involving allegations of sexual harassment against one Sourav Mondal, in which the accused acted as an ocular witness. According to the victim’s testimony, she had filed a case against the appellant, Nando Kumar Mondal, herein the accused who is her brother-in-law. In the year 2020, she visited the appellant’s house and shared a room with her elder sister and nephew, Rudro Kumar Mondal. While they were asleep, the accused inappropriately touched her breasts and engaged in unwanted physical contact on three occasions. She disclosed the incident to her elder sister, but due to threats from the accused, her sister chose not to disclose the matter to anyone else. It was further stated that once, in one earlier occasion the accused even attempted to assault the victim’s father during a heated argument, resulting in a six-year absence of visits to the accused person’s house. (II) PW-2 is the father of the victim. He deposed that his youngest daughter, who is the victim, has leveled accusations of rape against Nando Kumar Mondal (the Son-in-law of the PW2), which led to the filing of the current complaint at his residence. Additionally, he testified that approximately ten years ago, the accused person attempted to assault him. (III) PW-3 Dr. Mini Medona is the medical officer attached to the District hospital at Billiground PHC. On 06.08.2020 she was posted in the same hospital and had examined the victim in connection with FIR no. 48/20 dated 05.08.2020 under Sections 3/4/5/6/7/8/20 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 who was brought in and identified by the Investigating Officer (IO). She deposed that the victim stated that when she visited her sister’s house, her brother-in-law, the accused had sexual contact with her and asked the victim not to disclose it to anyone. Based on the victim’s historical background, results from the clinical examination, and laboratory report, the expert witness (PW-3) expressed the opinion that the identification marks indicated the absence of any external injuries in the genital vulva area, approximately two months after the incident of sexual violence occurred. However, it should be noted that the Perineal Body (PB) examination acknowledges the presence of one easily identifiable individual who engages in frequent sexual activity. (IV) PW-4 is the headmaster attached to Middle School, Billiground. However, it should be noted that the Perineal Body (PB) examination acknowledges the presence of one easily identifiable individual who engages in frequent sexual activity. (IV) PW-4 is the headmaster attached to Middle School, Billiground. He deposed that according to the admission register for the year 2004-2019 the victim was a student of their school. Based on the admission register he issued a certificate showing the date of birth of the victim as 08.08.2007. (V) PW-5 is a member of the JJB Board, Mayabunder. He deposed that in his presence on 05.08.2020 the victim’s statement was recorded by the police. On request of the SHO, he had put his signature on the statement made by the victim. (VI) PW-6 is the step mother of the victim. She deposed that the victim, in her disclosure, revealed that she was subjected to rape by the accused. Previously, she resided in Cuthbert, where there is no official government road. The local residents of that area utilize the courtyards of various individuals as a pathway. Within this location, there are two separate houses. The victim resides in one house, while the other house is primarily used for storing paddy and is relatively accessible. Furthermore, she asserted that she had no prior knowledge regarding the incident of sexual harassment involving one Sourav Mondal. Subsequently, she became aware of one Sourav Mondal being apprehended from the house where paddy was stored. Importantly, she emphasized that her deposition is truthful and not motivated by any ill-will or animosity. (VII) PW-7 is the eldest sister of the victim. She deposed that she received information about the incident from her father via telephone three days later. Additionally, she stated that the accused, Nando Mondol and her brother-in-law had previously subjected her to rape, but she did not report it to the police. She also affirmed that due to a dispute between the accused and her father, the accused attempted to physically assault her father. As a result, there is currently no amicable relationship between her father and the accused. (VIII) PW-8 is the S.I of Police at PS CCS. He deposed that on 18.08.2020 he was posted at PS Billiground as SHO. On that date IO/PSI Arothi Roy herein PW-10, submitted the investigation report before him for submission of charge sheet before the Court. As a result, there is currently no amicable relationship between her father and the accused. (VIII) PW-8 is the S.I of Police at PS CCS. He deposed that on 18.08.2020 he was posted at PS Billiground as SHO. On that date IO/PSI Arothi Roy herein PW-10, submitted the investigation report before him for submission of charge sheet before the Court. He perused the materials available in the case diary and thereafter submitted a charge sheet in connection with the case u/s. 3/4/5(1)/6/7/8/16/21of POCSO Act, 2012 read with sections 376/506 of IPC against the accused. (IX) PW-9 is the Chief Medical officer I/C at PHC Billiground. He deposed that on 05.08.2020 he was posted at the same place as in the same capacity. He examined the accused in connection with a police case that was brought and identified by the SHO of PS Billiground. On examination he found that the patient herein the accused was capable of having sexual intercourse thereafter prepared a report on the same. (X) PW-10 is SI of police posted at PS Billiground on 05.08.2020. She deposed that she conducted the recording of the victim’s statement in the presence of her father; herein PW-2 and an independent witness (PW-5). Subsequently, she reviewed and explained the statement to the victim, who then provided her signature. Following this, the Station House Officer (SHO) of PS Billiground initiated the case as FIR No. 48 of 2020 under sections 3/4/5(1)/6/7/8/21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, along with sections 376/506 of the IPC. She assumed responsibility for the investigation based on the SHO’s authorization. During the course of the investigation, prepared a site plan with an index, examined available witnesses, and recorded their statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. Additionally, she arranged for the victim to undergo a medical examination at the hospital and collected certificates from her school. She captured three photographs of the crime scene, which were subsequently developed. Following that, she apprehended the accused and presented him before the court. Upon concluding the investigation, she submitted the investigation report to the SHO of Billiground PS for the purpose of filing a charge sheet before the Special Court. 8. Adopting a hyper-technical approach by extracting sentences from their contextual evidence or magnifying minor technical errors without delving into the substantive matter would be erroneous. Upon concluding the investigation, she submitted the investigation report to the SHO of Billiground PS for the purpose of filing a charge sheet before the Special Court. 8. Adopting a hyper-technical approach by extracting sentences from their contextual evidence or magnifying minor technical errors without delving into the substantive matter would be erroneous. It is, thus, imperative to explore the crux of the issue and take into account the overarching context rather than fixating solely on technicalities. Furthermore, the Calcutta High Court in Swapan Mondal vs. State, 2021 SCC Online Cal. 2007 deliberated upon specific legal aspects that are addressed in the instance case: “57. The POCSO Act is a special statute. In view of the fact that the child is in a vulnerable position and is required to be protected from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, etc., the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudential presumption of innocence is replaced by a presumption of commission or abatement or attempt to commit an offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act “unless the contrary is proved” by Section 29 of the POCSO Act. 58. Similarly, Section 30 states that the Special Court shall presume that the accused had the requisite “culpable mental state” to commit an offence under the POCSO Act when prosecuted for an offence requiring such a mental state under the said Act. However, Section 30 allows the accused to take a defence by proving the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence under the POCSO Act. The explanation to Section 30 states that “culpable mental state” includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in or reason to believe a fact.” 9. However, in the present case, this Court is of the view that the prosecutrix has provided and substantiated foundational evidence there by proving her case beyond all reasonable doubt and the appellant has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecutrix and come to the conclusion that the appellant committed offences punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 376 of IPC. Besides, no material contradiction could be elicited from her cross-examination. Moreover, the testimony of the minor victim has also been corroborated by compelling medical evidences as deposed by PW-3. Besides, no material contradiction could be elicited from her cross-examination. Moreover, the testimony of the minor victim has also been corroborated by compelling medical evidences as deposed by PW-3. Therefore, the prosecutrix could successfully prove the case of Penetrative Sexual assault upon the victim girl. 10. Hence, given the gravity of the charges, the veracity of the victim’s testimony, the medical evidence substantiating it and thus, we concur with the decision rendered by the Learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, 2012 and, therefore, the appeal is rejected. The judgment and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby affirmed. All other applications are also accordingly rejected. 11. Copy of the judgment along with Lower Court Records shall be sent back to the trial court at once for necessary compliance.