JUDGMENT : TIRTHANKAR GHOSH, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 13th August, 2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) North and Middle Andaman, Mayabunder in connection with Special (POCSO) ST No. 35 of 2019 corresponding to Special POCSO Case No. 20 of 2019, wherein the learned Special Court was pleased to acquit the accused/respondent from the charges under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 AB/506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The genesis of the case relate to Diglipur Police Station Case No. 78/19 dated 01.08.2019 which was registered for investigation under Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 376 AB/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The registration of the aforesaid case was pursuant to the statement of the victim aged about sixteen years ten months and twenty days recorded by the inspector/Officer-in-charge of the Police Station wherein the victim stated that she was residing with her parents in the rented house in Shibpur and both of them were engaged as labours. When she was nine years old, she was admitted at Seva Niketan situated at Dairyfarm, where she studied from class I to VI at Dairyfarm Hindi Medium School. Her mother was assaulted and forced to bring her back to the house from Seva Niketan in the year 2017 and she was admitted at Government School Keralapuram. She alleged that one day when her mother was not at home, her father patted on her body and when she ignored the same, she was threatened and forced to have physical relationship. She was further asked not to divulge the matter to anyone or else she would be killed along with her mother. Being afraid, she did not divulge such incident to her mother and thereafter, whenever her mother went out for work, her father forcibly used to have physical relationship with her. On 30.07.2019, when she went to the house of her maternal grandmother (which was in a nearby place) her father came there, called her and ordered her to go to the house. At about 12:30 P.M. her father patted on her body and asked her to take his private part in her mouth and at about 13.00 hours when she came out running, one of the neighbours wife stopped her. She narrated about her father’s behavior. At about 12:30 P.M. her father patted on her body and asked her to take his private part in her mouth and at about 13.00 hours when she came out running, one of the neighbours wife stopped her. She narrated about her father’s behavior. Thereafter, at night, the said neighbour-grandma narrated the incident to her mother and on 01.08.2019 her mother and the said neighbour took her to CHC, Diglipur, for treatment where the doctor, after the treatment, asked them to inform the police and then they went to the Police Station for reporting the incident. She alleged that since 2017, her father on number of occasions had physical relationship with her when nobody was there at home, as such she prayed for proper investigation against her father. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid information, Diglipur Police Station Case No. 78 of 2019 was registered and on conclusion of investigation, the investigating authorities submitted the charge sheet, being charge sheet No. 87/19 dated 07.09.2019. The investigating authorities, in order to prove its case relied upon ten witnesses and eleven documents. The learned Special Court thereafter framed charges against the accused respondent under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and also under Section 506 along with Section 376 AB of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined PW 1, ‘Y’ mother of the victim girl; PW 2, Sandhya Das, described as neighboring grandma; PW 3, Smt. Solomie, ASI of Police who recorded the statement of the victim girl; PW 4, ‘Z’, grandmother of the victim girl; PW 5, ‘X’ victim girl; PW 6, Smt. Sangeeta Ekka, Nursing officer of CHC Diglipur; PW 7, Ramesh Kishan, Head Constable of Special Armed Police who filled up the formal FIR; PW 8, Dr. Nazia Rasheed, Doctor who examined the victim at Diglipur CHC and prepared the report; PW 9, Inspector Preetam Bihari who submitted the charge sheet against the accused; PW 10, ASI P.Abdul Salam Investigating officer of the case. 5. Nazia Rasheed, Doctor who examined the victim at Diglipur CHC and prepared the report; PW 9, Inspector Preetam Bihari who submitted the charge sheet against the accused; PW 10, ASI P.Abdul Salam Investigating officer of the case. 5. Prosecution also relied upon number of documents which included Exhibit-1 statement of the victim girl which was recorded by ASI Solomie and treated to be the complaint for registration of FIR; Exhibit-2 is Medico Legal Examination report of Sexual Violence; Exhibit-3 is the medical examination report of the accused; Exhibit-4 is the seizure list relating to the birth certificate of the victim girl; Exhibit-5 is handing over memo; Exhibit-6 is the sketch map/site plan; Exhibit-7 is the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. to the learned Judicial Magistrate; Exhibit-8 is the covering letter prepared by the Registrar of Births and Deaths to the SHO, Diglipur; Exhibit-9 is the Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths of the victim girl; Exhibit-10 is the formal FIR; Exhibit-11 is the report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. 6. PW 1, ‘Y’ the mother of the victim girl in her deposition before the Court stated that the victim ‘X’ is her daughter and the accused is her husband. As her husband was unable to maintain her daughter, she was sent to Seva Niketan Ashram, Port Blair and when she was studying in class VI, her husband forced her to bring her back from Ashram. She was admitted thereafter at Keralapuram School, Diglipur where she studied from class VI. Subsequently, disturbance started between her and her husband and as a result her daughter could not appear in the final examination of class VIII and thereafter started residing at the house. She used to leave for work when her daughter would mostly stay at her mother’s (Grandmother) house. Her husband opposed the daughter to be sent to her maternal grandmother’s home and suddenly in the month of July 2019 when she woke up in the morning, her daughter told her that she wanted to say something. However, at that point of time her husband came there and, as such, her daughter/victim could not narrate anything to her. On 30 July, 2019 her daughter/victim rang her and told her to meet Sandhya in the evening. However, at that point of time her husband came there and, as such, her daughter/victim could not narrate anything to her. On 30 July, 2019 her daughter/victim rang her and told her to meet Sandhya in the evening. She along with her daughter went to Sandhya’s house and it was Sandhya from whom she came to know that her husband had been forcing physical relationship with her daughter. She asked her daughter regarding the incident, but she did not say anything to her. She was also not ready to come back home and stated that if she returned at her home, her father would kill her. Her daughter on 30.07.2019 went to her grandmother’s home and on 01.08.2019 she took her daughter to CHC Diglipur for medical examination suspecting that something wrong has been committed with her and from CHC Diglipur she along with her daughter went to Police Station Diglipur. Police recorded the statement of the victim in her presence, when Sandhya Das was also present. Thereafter, she came to know that her husband forced physical relationship with her daughter several times, since long. She also came to know that when her daughter used to return home during holidays, while staying at the Ashram, her husband used to make physical relationship with her. The police authorities read over the statement of the victim which they recorded. She identified her signature on the said document which was marked as Exhibit 1/1. She was also handed over with Xerox copy of the birth certificate and the Aadhar card of her daughter which the police seized by way of seizure list. She identified her signature which was marked as Exhibit 4/1. After medical examination, the victim was handed over to her and she signed on the memorandum which was marked as Exhibit 5/1, she identified her husband/accused in Court. In the cross examination, she stated that she was married with the accused twenty two years ago. She had two sons and two daughters. Victim happens to be her third child and she had never seen any illicit relationship with the her husband and her daughter, nor did she hear that her husband had any illicit relationship with any lady. She heard regarding the incident from Sandhya and thereafter from her daughter at Police Station Diglipur. 7. She had two sons and two daughters. Victim happens to be her third child and she had never seen any illicit relationship with the her husband and her daughter, nor did she hear that her husband had any illicit relationship with any lady. She heard regarding the incident from Sandhya and thereafter from her daughter at Police Station Diglipur. 7. PW 2 Sandhya Das is neighbour, who deposed that she knew the accused, his wife i.e. PW 1 and the victim. She stated that on 30.07.2019 at about 10 A.M. when she was going to the shop to purchase something, she saw that the victim girl was going towards her maternal grandmother’s house running barefooted and was also weeping. She asked her to stop but she did not pay any heed and rushed towards her maternal grandmother’s house. She thereafter called her and asked her as to what happened to her when she disclosed that her father used to make physical relationship with her. The victim also told her not to disclose the same as her mother might commit suicide or her father may kill her. Subsequently, she called PW 1 to her house and disclosed about the disturbing events, asking her also to inquire about the incident. She along with PW 1 and the victim went to CHC Diglipur and from there they had been to PS Diglipur. Police recorded the statement of the victim girl in her presence, where she signed. She identified her signature in the fardbayan of the victim which was marked as exhibit 1/2. She also identified the accused in Court. 8. PW 3 is Smt. Solomie, ASI of Police who was posted on 01.08.2019 at Diglipur Station. She deposed that on 01.08.2019 when she was on duty, she recorded statement of the victim at the instruction of SHO of PS Diglipur. After recording her statement, she read over the same and took signature of the victim. She also signed the statement as scribe. She identified her signature which was marked as exhibit 1/3. 9. PW 4 ‘Z’ is the grandmother of the victim girl. She deposed that the victim was her granddaughter and the accused was her son in law. She stated that after lodging of complaint, she heard from her daughter/PW 1 that her son-in-law committed rape on the victim girl/granddaughter. She identified the accused in Court. 10. 9. PW 4 ‘Z’ is the grandmother of the victim girl. She deposed that the victim was her granddaughter and the accused was her son in law. She stated that after lodging of complaint, she heard from her daughter/PW 1 that her son-in-law committed rape on the victim girl/granddaughter. She identified the accused in Court. 10. PW 5 ‘X’ is the victim who deposed that police recorded her statement and the same was read over to her when she signed the same. She identified her signature which was marked as Exhibit-1/4. She was medically examined at CHC, Diglipur and after her medical examination, she was asked to sign on the medical examination report. She identified her signature in Court in the Medico Legal Examination Report which was marked as Exhibit 2/1. She stated that she gave her statement before the learned Magistrate at Mayabunder in presence of her mother which was recorded by the learned Magistrate, the same was read over and she signed the same. She identified her signatures in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C which were marked as Exhibit -7/1 and 7/2 respectively. She narrated that her father as well as her mother worked as labourers under a contractor and she read from class I to class VI at Seva Niketan, Dairyfarm, Port Blair where she stayed at the hostel. Her father pressurized her mother to bring her back from the hostel and she was accordingly brought back and admitted to Keralapuram school in class VII. She used to attend the school from her home and after a few days, her father stopped her from attending school. Her father intended to sell her at Kolkata. When her mother asked her father as to why he stopped her from attending school, her father assaulted her mother. In the absence of her mother, her father inserted his penis in her private part and used to do such act twice a day. Her father used to go for work once in a week only and used to be present at the house. She stated that her father sexually abused her continuously. In the absence of her mother, her father inserted his penis in her private part and used to do such act twice a day. Her father used to go for work once in a week only and used to be present at the house. She stated that her father sexually abused her continuously. One day, her father brought her to his house from the house of her maternal grandmother (nani) at about 12.00 noon and inserted his penis in her mouth and when she removed her mouth, her father assaulted her, thereafter her father tried to insert his penis in her private part, but she fled away from the house and went to her maternal grandmother’s house. Her maternal grandmother asked her why she returned, however, she did not disclose anything. When she was going to the house of her maternal grandmother Sandhya saw her running and in the evening Sandhya came and asked her as to what happen to her, when she disclosed about the acts of her father. On the following day, Sandhya took her to CHC Diglipur for medical checkup and thereafter her statement was recorded at the police station. She identified her father/accused in Court. 11. PW 6 is Smt. Sangeeta Ekka. She is the Nursing Officer of CHC Diglipur. She deposed that on 02.08.2019 she was posted at the same place, in the same capacity and on that day the victim girl was examined by the doctor in her presence and she signed the medical report. She identified her signature in the medical report which was marked as Exhibit 2/2. 12. PW 7 is Ramesh Kishen who was posted as Special Armed Police at Port Blair as Head Constable and was working in same post at PS Diglipur on 01.08.2019. He deposed that he filled up the formal FIR after considering the fardbayan and on direction of the Station House Officer of PS Diglipur, he identified the FIR which was prepared and signed by him. 13. PW 8 is Dr. Nazia Rasheed who was posted on 02.08.2019 at Diglipur CHC. She deposed that on that day she examined the victim in connection with the police case who was brought and identified by the police. On examination, she found there was inflammation, tenderness and the hymen was ruptured long back. 13. PW 8 is Dr. Nazia Rasheed who was posted on 02.08.2019 at Diglipur CHC. She deposed that on that day she examined the victim in connection with the police case who was brought and identified by the police. On examination, she found there was inflammation, tenderness and the hymen was ruptured long back. She stated that there was a history to that effect and the victim stated that history which had been clearly recorded in her report. She pointed out that the clinical finding suggested that multiple episode of sexual violence had occurred with the victim. She identified the medical examination report which was prepared and signed by her under official seal, the said medical report was marked as Exhibit 2. 14. PW 9 is Inspector Preetam Bihari who submitted the charge sheet against the accused under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act read with Section 376 IPC/506 IPC. 15. PW 10 is ASI P. Abdul Salam who deposed that on 01.08.2019, he was posted at Diglipur Police Station as ASI of Police and he was endorsed to investigate FIR No. 78/19. He narrated that after taking up investigation he visited the place of occurrence, prepared rough sketch map with index, examined the available witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He arranged for the victim to be medically examined and collected the medical examination report. He also organized for the statement of the victim to be recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and after the same was recorded, he collected a copy of the said statement. The birth certificate of the victim was seized under a proper seizure list and thereafter he arrested the accused and produced him before the Court. Thereafter medical examination of the accused was also done and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused under Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 376/506 of IPC. 16. The learned Special Court, on an appreciation of the evidence, was pleased to acquit the accused. The issues which weighed with the learned Special Court /Trial court are as follows:- “15.FINDINGS OF THE COURT: On careful perusal of the materials available in the record and on submission made by Ld. 16. The learned Special Court, on an appreciation of the evidence, was pleased to acquit the accused. The issues which weighed with the learned Special Court /Trial court are as follows:- “15.FINDINGS OF THE COURT: On careful perusal of the materials available in the record and on submission made by Ld. Counsel for the parties, it appears that regarding forcible penetration by the accused person about few years back, no iota of evidence is found to reach the conclusion that the accused is guilty to the charges. Moreover, it appears from the deposition of one Sandhya that she saw the incident of ran away by the victim but the victim did not tell anything immediate after the incident to Sandhya and subsequently Sandhya came to learn about the incident. The role of Sandhya is this aspect appears to be dubious. Victim did not tell anything after the alleged incident immediately so question of forcible penetration does not and cannot arise at all and the medical evidence with regard to aggravated penetrative sexual assault in the recent past is also missing paramountly. The investigation by ASI is irregular in the POCSO Act. As per mandate of the POCSO Act the investigation should be done preferably by lady Sub Inspector.” 17. Learned advocate for the state/appellant Ms. A.S.Zinu submits that the victim, PW 5 in her examination-in-chief categorically stated regarding the sexual assault being inflicted by the accused continuously and the same was in the absence of her mother, the veracity of which was not tested in the cross examination. It was further submitted on behalf of the state that the victim was consistent in her statement with regard to the sexual assault both in her deposition before the Court as well as statement which was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C before the learned Judicial Magistrate. Only bare suggestions were put forward at the time of cross-examination on behalf of the accused. The medical examination report do corroborate the oral version of the victim which is consistent throughout, from the stage of investigation and also in her deposition before the Court. Only bare suggestions were put forward at the time of cross-examination on behalf of the accused. The medical examination report do corroborate the oral version of the victim which is consistent throughout, from the stage of investigation and also in her deposition before the Court. Learned advocate, on the issue of law, submitted that the trial court ignored the provisions of Section 29 and 30 of POCSO Act and erroneously arrived at its finding of acquittal without any cogent reasons and as such the order of acquittal is liable to be set aside as the same is beyond the scope of law. In order to substantiate her case, learned advocate relied upon the cases of Shri. Lalmalsom Kaipeng vs. State of Tirupura (Division Bench) being CRL A (J) 34 of 2019; State of HPO vs. Manga Singh reported in (2019) 16 SCC 759 ; State of Punjab vs. Gurmeet Singh reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 ; Ranjit Hazarika vs. State of Assam (1998) 8 SCC 635 ; State of Karnataka vs. Manjanna reported in AIR 2000 SC 2231 ; State (Delhi Administration) vs. Dharampal reported in AIR 2001 SC 2924 ; SC Bahri vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1994 SC 2420 ; Shobhit Chamar vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1998 SC 1693 . 18. Mr. D.Ilango, learned advocate for the accused/respondent submitted that the accused has been seriously prejudiced from the inception of the trial as charges were framed wrongly and the court did not apply its mind while charges were read over to the accused, as it presumed that the victim was seven years old. The records of the case at the stage of consideration of the charges in fact reflected that she was more than 16 years and unnecessarily charges were framed under Section 376 AB. The prosecution case from the inception also raises the doubt in view of the fact that the victim stated that she was being sexually assaulted from the age of nine years and had the incident of 30th July, 2019 not taken place, then the FIR would not have been registered. The prosecution case from the inception also raises the doubt in view of the fact that the victim stated that she was being sexually assaulted from the age of nine years and had the incident of 30th July, 2019 not taken place, then the FIR would not have been registered. Additionally, it was submitted that the statement of the victim before the police which was considered to be FIR, the statement before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C and the deposition of the victim before the Court were at variance to such an extent that no man of ordinary prudence would believe the factual circumstances and, as such, the learned trial court committed no illegality. In fact, the medical report would also reflect that the doctor had recorded the date of the incident to be a month before, although the incident complained of, is of 30th July, 2019 and the medical examination was conducted on 02.08.2019. It was also pointed out by the learned advocate appearing for the accused/respondent that the examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was carried out in a slip-shod manner, without the incriminating circumstances appearing against him being asked and the same being relied upon. Lastly, it was submitted that as there were a number of irregularities and illegalities which were not curable it would not be fit and proper to interfere with an order of acquittal which has been passed by the learned trial court, who had the opportunity to closely observe all the witnesses. 19. Before proceeding with the merits of the appeal, it would be relevant to consider the settled proposition of law as has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ganesan v. State, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 573 . The relevant paragraphs are set out as follows: “10.1. Whether, in the case involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc., can there be conviction on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, in Vijay [Vijay v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 639], it is observed in paras 9 to 14 as under: (SCC pp. 195-98) “9. The relevant paragraphs are set out as follows: “10.1. Whether, in the case involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc., can there be conviction on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, in Vijay [Vijay v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 639], it is observed in paras 9 to 14 as under: (SCC pp. 195-98) “9. In [State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 210] this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under: (SCC p. 559, para 16) ‘16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.’ 10. In [State of U.P. v. Pappu, (2005) 3 SCC 594 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 780] this Court held that even in a case where it is shown that the girl is a girl of easy virtue or a girl habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground to absolve the accused from the charge of rape. It has to be established that there was consent by her for that particular occasion. Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the court to absolve the accused. This Court further held that there can be conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and in case, the court is not satisfied with the version of the prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct or circumstantial, by which it may get assurance of her testimony. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 597, para 12) ‘12. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice, would do.’ 11. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice, would do.’ 11. In [State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 316], this Court held that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc. the court is duty-bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. The Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 394-96 & 403, paras 8 & 21) ‘8. … The court overlooked the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three desperate young men who were threatening her and preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix. … The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. … The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. … Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. … Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. … *** 21. … The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.’ (emphasis in original) 12. In [State of Orissa v. ThakaraBesra, (2002) 9 SCC 86 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1080], this Court held that rape is not mere physical assault, rather it often distracts (sic destroys) the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non-examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence. 13. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non-examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence. 13. In [State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 622 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 674] this Court held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in [Wahid Khan v. State of M.P., (2010) 2 SCC 9 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1208] placing reliance on an earlier judgment in [Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, 1951 SCC 1213 : AIR 1952 SC 54 ] . 14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.” 10.2. In [Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 61], it is observed and held by this Court that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. 10.3. Who can be said to be a “sterling witness”, has been dealt with and considered by this Court in [Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 750] . In para 22, it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 29) “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. In para 22, it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 29) “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 20. In this case, there is a consistent version of PW 5, the victim, wherein she had narrated regarding the manner in which she was sexually abused, corroboration to that effect is seen from the medical examination report which has been marked as Exhibit-2. An assessment of the said report reflects that the victim narrated before the doctor which is set out in verbatim as follows: “The victim, ‘X’, told that when she was 7 years old, her father, xxx, attempted to sexually exploit her but couldn’t do it. Then she was admitted in Seva Niketan Ashram in Port Blair at 8 years of age. During that time when she used to visit her home on leave, her father used to take her to jungle and attempted to sexually exploit her. He used to ask her to ‘suck’ and ‘eat’ his penis, following which he used to ejaculate inside her mouth, threatening to beat her up if she spitted out anything. In case when the child used to uncontrollably vomit, he used to beat her up with his hand, fist and also kick her violently, this used to happen everyday during her leave period from Aashram, though he couldn’t, during that period, was able to make complete vaginal intercourse with her. During this period the victim’s family was residing in Shanti Nagar. In 2016, ‘X’ took TC from the school she was studying in Port Blair and came & joined a govt. school in Keralapuram. Their new residence was a rented house in Shibpur. During this period the victim’s family was residing in Shanti Nagar. In 2016, ‘X’ took TC from the school she was studying in Port Blair and came & joined a govt. school in Keralapuram. Their new residence was a rented house in Shibpur. She went to school for 7th & 8th standard, during which period not attempt was made due to lack of opportunity as the mother used to be there. She left school after 8th standard and from next day onwards he again started sexual exploitation with her. After her mother used to leave for work, he used to close the doors and threaten her, and if she refused, she was dragged inside her house, then she was forcefully undressed by him and then he used to lift up his ‘Lungi’ and used to do complete vaginal intercourse with her. He also used to press her buttocks and chest violently. He used to force her to take his penis in her mouth and masturbate in her mouth and used to hit her violently if she vomited. This used to happen twice daily everyday at home for last year, including the time of her menstruation.” 21. So far as the observation of doctor as contained in serial No. 17 under the heading ‘Examination for injuries on the body if any’ it has been observed ‘tender to touch – nipples’, ‘tender old and healed wound’ and ‘the assailant used to bite her nipple’. So far as serial No. 18 which refers to ‘Local examination of genital parts’ it has been observed by the doctor in respect to ‘Urethral meatus and vestibule’ as ‘inflamed and tender’; so far as the other genital part is concerned, it has been observed ‘inflamed and tender to touch, hymen ruptured long back and foul smelling discharge’. In the said report, it has been observed by the doctor that the clinical findings suggests that multiple episodes of sexual violence had occurred with the victim. 22. In the said report, it has been observed by the doctor that the clinical findings suggests that multiple episodes of sexual violence had occurred with the victim. 22. Ordinarily, in a case of an appeal against acquittal, this Court does not interfere, but, however, having regard to the exceptional circumstances and the manner in which the learned Trial Court has dealt with the present case and arrived at its finding, we are of the opinion that this case is a fit case for interference in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P. reported in (2009) 10 SCC 636 . The relevant paragraph is set out as follows:- “14. We have considered the arguments advanced and heard the matter at great length. It is true, as contended by Mr Rao, that interference in an appeal against an acquittal recorded by the trial court should be rare and in exceptional circumstances. It is, however, well settled by now that it is open to the High Court to reappraise the evidence and conclusions drawn by the trial court but only in a case when the judgment of the trial court is stated to be perverse. The word “perverse” in terms as understood in law has been defined to mean “against the weight of evidence”. We have to see accordingly as to whether the judgment of the trial court which has been found perverse by the High Court was in fact so.” 23. We have considered the version of the witnesses before the learned trial court and analysed the same. On an appreciation of such evidence, we find that the victim was consistent in her version on the following aspects: a) She was earlier studying at Seva Nikatan, Dairyfarm, Port Blair up to class VI and her father compelled her to leave the school and she was brought back to the house from the hostel and was admitted at Keralapuram school in class VII. After some days, her father stopped her from attending the school and was intending to sell her at Kolkata. When her mother raised the issue of stopping her from going to school, her father assaulted her mother. b) In the absence of her mother, her father inserted his penis into her private part and used to do such act twice a day. When her mother raised the issue of stopping her from going to school, her father assaulted her mother. b) In the absence of her mother, her father inserted his penis into her private part and used to do such act twice a day. Her father continuously sexually abused her. c) One day, she was brought back from her maternal grandmother’s house at about 12.00 noon by her father who inserted his penis in her mouth and when she removed her mouth she was assaulted by her father and thereafter when her father tried to insert his penis in her private part she fled away from the house and went to her maternal grandmother’s house. d) When she was going to her grandmother’s house Sandhya saw her running and in the evening she came and asked her what happen with her when she disclosed the acts done by her father. She was thereafter taken to CHC Diglipur for medical checkup and her statement was recorded at the Police Station. e) On the aforesaid aspects, no question was asked in course of the cross examination on behalf of the accused and only few suggestions were offered for the purpose of dislodging her version which the victim was able to resist and she could not be shaken on any issue at the time of cross examination. It is reiterated that so far as the incident relating to sexual assault inflicted by the father of the victim is concerned on the said subject, her version in the FIR, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C and before the doctor were consistent and on the said issue no cross examination was done on behalf of the accused to test the truth attached to her statement. f) The medical evidence which has been discussed above is overwhelming corroborative piece of evidence in respect of the accusations which have been leveled against the accused. 24. The learned trial court did not deal with any of the issues and only relied upon attending circumstances to arrive at its finding of acquittal. In fact the learned trial court failed to consider that the trial of the offence were under the provisions of the POCSO Act. Section 29 of the POCSO Act which refers to presumption as to certain offences is set out as follows. “29. Presumption as certain offences. In fact the learned trial court failed to consider that the trial of the offence were under the provisions of the POCSO Act. Section 29 of the POCSO Act which refers to presumption as to certain offences is set out as follows. “29. Presumption as certain offences. – where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and Section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved.” 25. The said section refers to Section 5 of the POCSO Act and the learned trial court should have take into account that one of the charges for which the accused was tried was under Section 6 of the POCSO Act which is punitive provision for commission of offence under Section 5 of the said act. 26. It would be pertinent to state that Section 29 refers to the standard of evidence as ‘shall presume’ and ‘unless the contrary is proved’. As such, the learned trial court should have taken into account that when the standard of evidence in favour of the prosecution is ‘shall presume’ and a factual basis is laid down on the basis of the deposition of victim then the onus shifts upon the accused to rebut such facts which have surfaced in course of evidence. The presumption laid down in the Act is presumption of law and is distinguishable from a presumption of fact where the Court can exercise its discretion of ‘may presume’ in respect of certain state of affairs. As such, once the obligation of the prosecution is discharged with the aid of presumptions of law or fact, it would be the duty of the accused to adduce such evidence to show reasonable possibility of non existence of the presumed fact. In this case, neither by way of cross examination nor by way of adducing any evidence, the accused has been able to create circumstances from where a court can infer non existence of the facts narrated/deposed by the victim and corroborated by way of medical evidence. In this case, neither by way of cross examination nor by way of adducing any evidence, the accused has been able to create circumstances from where a court can infer non existence of the facts narrated/deposed by the victim and corroborated by way of medical evidence. Having regard to the same, we are of the opinion that the judgement and order of acquittal dated 13th August, 2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) North and Middle Andaman, Mayabunder in connection with Special (POCSO) ST No. 35 of 2019 corresponding to Special POCSO Case No. 20 of 2019 calls for interference and the same, as such, is set aside. 27. Consequently CRA/17/2021 is allowed. 28. The learned trial court is directed to issue a bailable warrant and thereafter ensure the appearance of the accused by issuing harsher process of law. This court is of the opinion that the charges are to be framed under Section 5 (n) and Section 5 (p) which are punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act along with Section 376 (2)(f) of the IPC, accordingly the charges may be altered and read over to the accused. In course of hearing, Mr. Ilango pointed out that in the cross examination under section 313 Cr.P.C the part which has been referred to in question No.3, which refers to the evidence of the victim is incorrect and other incriminating materials in respect of the evidence of the victim with regard to medical evidence of the victim has not been properly asked to the accused in order to enable him to explain the circumstances. As we have allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the learned Special Court we direct that the learned trial court after altering the charges would freshly conduct the examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter proceed to deliver the judgment afresh in tune with the observations made by this Court. 29. The department is directed to send back the Lower Court Records to the learned Special Court (POCSO Act) North and Middle Andaman, Mayabunder within a week from date. 30. The learned trial court, on receipt of the records, would immediately follow the steps as has been directed above. 31. Pending connected application if any is disposed of. 32. 29. The department is directed to send back the Lower Court Records to the learned Special Court (POCSO Act) North and Middle Andaman, Mayabunder within a week from date. 30. The learned trial court, on receipt of the records, would immediately follow the steps as has been directed above. 31. Pending connected application if any is disposed of. 32. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. SHAMPA SARKAR, J.- I agree.