JUDGMENT : Mitali Thakuria, J. Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. 2. This appeal has been preferred from the jail against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Udalguri in Special POCSO Case No.05/2019, arising out of Mazbat P.S. Case No.58/2018 and convicted the accused/appellant under Section 376(2)(k) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and applying the provision under Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only, with default stipulation, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It is also observed by the learned Special Judge, Udalguri that though initially the charge was framed against the accused appellant under Section 376(2)(I) IPC by his predecessor but considering the mental and physical disability of the victim, the charge is accordingly altered at the time of passing the judgment and accordingly he is convicted under Section 376(2)(k) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that a girl of 12 years old, who is deaf and dumb is the victim of this case who was alleged to have been raped by the accused appellant on 24.10.2018 at about 3 p.m. in her own house, while the victim was alone. To that effect, her father Mochahari lodged an FIR at Mazbat Police Station on 24.10.2018 itself, which is accordingly registered as the Mazbat P.S. Case No.58/2018, under Section 376AB IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 4. After receiving the charge sheet and on committal of the case, the learned Special Judge, after hearing the parties had framed the charge under Section 376(2)(I) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 8 witnesses including the informant, the victim, the investigating officer and the Medical Officer and also exhibited some documents, including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. 6. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 8 witnesses including the informant, the victim, the investigating officer and the Medical Officer and also exhibited some documents, including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. 6. The accused appellant did not adduce any evidence in support of his case and he took the plea of total denial in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. Thereafter, hearing the argument put forwarded by the learned counsel for both sides, the learned Special Judge, Udalguri accordingly passed the impugned judgment and order convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376(2)(k) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and applying the provision under Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only, with default stipulation, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 7. Mr. M. Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that there is no eye witness to the prosecution case and all the witnesses are the hearsay witnesses and the learned Special Judge, Udalguri passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction solely on the basis of the evidence adduced by the victim/prosecutrix and on the circumstantial evidence. Mr. Dutta, the learned Amicus Curiae also raised the issue that although the statement of the victim was recorded with the help of interpreter who is also examined as CW.1, but the evidence was not video graphed and the sign expressed by the victim, while recording her evidence is also not recorded by the learned Special Judge, which is mandatory as per law, specially while recording the statement of a minor victim as well as the victim who is physically challenged. In that context, Mr. Dutta, the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal , reported in (2012) 5 SCC 789 and emphasized on para 18 of the said judgment which reads as under:- “18. The object of enacting the provisions of Section 119 of the Evidence Act reveals that deaf and dumb persons were earlier contemplated in law as idiots. The object of enacting the provisions of Section 119 of the Evidence Act reveals that deaf and dumb persons were earlier contemplated in law as idiots. However, such a view has subsequently been changed for the reason that modern science revealed that persons affected with such calamities are generally found more intelligent, and to be susceptible to far higher culture than one was once supposed. When a deaf and dumb person is examined in the court, the court has to exercise due caution and take care to ascertain before he is examined that he possesses the requisite amount of intelligence and that he understands the nature of an oath. On being satisfied on this, the witness may be administered oath by appropriate means and that also be with the assistance of an interpreter. However, in case a person can read and write, it is most desirable to adopt that method being more satisfactory than any sign language. The law required that there must be a record of signs and not the interpretation of signs.” 8. Mr. Dutta further submitted that the victim has not specifically stated as to how she was raped or sexually assaulted by the accused appellant and she made the only statement that the accused grabbed her, disrobed her under garment and did the sexual act with her by touching her private parts. Accordingly, it is submitted that if the accused touched her private parts by disrobing her under garment, the offence at best may attract Section 7 of the POCSO Act and it cannot be stated that the accused had any penetrating sexual assault on the victim to record conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, he submitted that in the statement made under Section 164 CrPC, she gave her statement specifically as to how she was raped by the accused but it is a well settled principle that the conviction cannot be based on Section 164 CrPC statement of any victim or witness and it can only be used for contradiction and corroboration. 9. In support of his argument, the learned Amicus Curiae relied upon the decision of R. Shaji vs. State of Kerala , reported in (2013) 14 SCC 266 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had discussed the evidentiary value of the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, paragraphs 27 & 28 which are read as under:- "27. 9. In support of his argument, the learned Amicus Curiae relied upon the decision of R. Shaji vs. State of Kerala , reported in (2013) 14 SCC 266 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had discussed the evidentiary value of the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, paragraphs 27 & 28 which are read as under:- "27. So far as the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164 is concerned, the object is two fold; in the first place, to deter the witness from changing his stand by denying the contents of his previously recorded statement, and secondly, to tide over immunity from prosecution by the witness under Section 164. A proposition to the effect that if a statement of a witness is recorded under Section 164, his evidence in Court should be discarded, is not at all warranted. (Vide: Jogendra Nahak & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2565 ; and Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajamundry v. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 2901 ). 28. Section 157 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., can be relied upon for the purpose of corroborating statements made by witnesses in the Committal Court or even to contradict the same. As the defence had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements are recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., such statements cannot be treated as substantive evidence." 10. Mr. Dutta, the learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that the medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution and as per the medical evidence, the Doctor did not find any evidence of recent sexual intercourse nor there was any mark of violence at the time of her examination. He further submitted that though as per the Doctor’s report, the hymen was found absent at the time of her examination but only for the absence of the hymen, it may not be held that the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault. He further submitted that though as per the Doctor’s report, the hymen was found absent at the time of her examination but only for the absence of the hymen, it may not be held that the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault. In that context also, he cited a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand vs. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai , reported in (2022) 14 SCC 299 , wherein, in para 67 of the said judgment, it has been held that “the status of hymen is irrelevant because the hymen can be torn due to several reasons such as cycling, riding or masturbation among other things. An intact hymen does not rule out sexual violence, and a torn hymen does not prove previous sexual intercourse. Hymen should therefore be treated like any other part of the genitals while documenting examination findings in cases of sexual violence. Only those that are relevant to the episode of assault (findings such as fresh tears, bleeding, edema etc.) are to be documented”. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Dutta, the learned Amicus Curiae that the prosecution could not establish the case against the accused appellant that he committed the sexual penetrative assault on the victim on the day of incident, as alleged against him. Hence, the judgment and the order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Udalguri is liable to be set aside and quashed. 11. Per contra, it is submitted by Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam that the learned Special Judge, Udalguri had elaborately discussed and assessed the evidence of the PWs in its true perspective and accordingly, convicted the accused appellant, as stated above and hence, there is no reason to make any interference in the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Udalguri. She further submitted that apart from the victim, the PW.2 is a vital witness of the prosecution case and in her evidence, the presence of the accused appellant in the house of the informant/victim is established which also corroborates the statement made by the victim under Section 164 and 161 of the CrPC as well as while adducing her evidence before the Court. She further submitted that the accused appellant himself had admitted his presence at the scene of crime or in the house of the victim on the date of incident, while recording his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. Thus the presence of the accused appellant in the house of the victim is well established. Further, it is submitted that the statement of the victim remained consistent in every stage of the case. She further submitted that on the day of incident, the accused appellant entered into the house of the informant/victim and taking advantage of absence of any other family member in the house, he committed the offence of penetrative sexual assault on the victim, who is also a physically challenged minor girl. She further submitted that the minor age of the victim is also not under challenge and thus, it is an admitted fact that the victim was a minor girl at the time of incident. 12. Ms. Bora, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submitted that the medical report also supports the case of the prosecution and only in absence of injury on the private parts of the victim, the entire case of the prosecution as well as the evidence of the victim cannot be discarded. In support of her contention, Ms. Bora, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh , passed in Criminal Appeal No.3352 of 2025, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.11659 of 2025, wherein it has been observed that : “merely because in the medical evidence, there are no major injury marks, this merely cannot be a reason to discard the otherwise reliable evidence of the prosecutrix. It is not necessary that in each and every case where rape is alleged there has to be an injury to the private parts of the victim and it depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case”. In para 5.5.3 of the said judgment, it is also held that: “5.5.3. The medical evidence may not be available in which circumstance, solitary testimony of the prosecutrix could be sufficient to base the conviction. The conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence. In para 5.5.3 of the said judgment, it is also held that: “5.5.3. The medical evidence may not be available in which circumstance, solitary testimony of the prosecutrix could be sufficient to base the conviction. The conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence. The conviction can be based solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the courts to insist for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law; but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contractions or small discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing the evidence of the prosecutrix.” 13. Ms. Bora, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submitted that the conviction can be based on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix if it is trustworthy and inspires confidence and the prosecutrix cannot be put on par with an accomplice. To substantiate her submission, she accordingly relied on the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and others , reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, wherein it has been held in para 8 as follows: “A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on 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 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 prosecurtix 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. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction of 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." 14. Ms. Bora, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor accordingly submitted that the learned Special Judge, Udalguri had rightly passed the order of conviction, after assessing the evidence on record in its true perspective and hence, there cannot be any reason to make any interference with the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court against the accused appellant. 15. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the case record. 16. From the record as well as from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is the case of the prosecution that a twelve years old deaf and dumb girl victim was alleged to have been raped by the accused appellant on the day of incident on 24.10.2018, at about 3:00 p.m., in her own house while the victim was alone and to that effect, the father of the victim lodged an FIR at Mazbat Police Station on the same day itself, which is accordingly registered and investigation was started. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the prosecution had examined eight (8) numbers of witnesses including the victim, informant, medical officer and the investigating officer. 17. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the prosecution had examined eight (8) numbers of witnesses including the victim, informant, medical officer and the investigating officer. 17. PW.1 is the informant/father of the victim and from his evidence, it reveals that at the time of incident, he was at the “center” near his house and his handicapped daughter/victim was alone in his house and then one Sumi Daimary (the PW.2) came and informed him that the accused appellant had raped his daughter. From his evidence it is seen that said PW.2 (Sumi Daimary) had rushed to the house of the informant when the victim raised alarm and saw the accused coming out of his house in a drunken stage. He immediately came to his house and asked his daughter as to what had happened and through sign language, she told that the accused appellant did bad act on her. He immediately informed the other persons who were present in the chowk and accordingly, they caught hold the accused and on inquiry, he also confessed his guilt. Thereafter, the accused appellant was taken to the Mazbat Police Station and handed over to the police. Thereafter, he lodged the FIR. From his cross evidence, it is seen that his house is visible from the chowk but he has not seen the accused while entering into his house. It also reveals from the evidence that the informant stays alone with his daughter and there is no other family member in his house. His daughter is not acquainted with any sign language but she can express the things through her sign and only can utter the words “maa” and “baba”. 18. PW.2 is another vital witness of the prosecution who immediately rushed to the house of the informant/victim when she heard crying of the victim girl and saw the accused standing near the door of the house of the victim. As per her, she asked the accused as to what he did with the victim. Initially he denied and said that he did nothing to her. Thereafter, the father of the victim came to home and then only she came to know that the accused committed rape on the minor daughter of the informant. The accused appellant was also interrogated by the villagers but she is not aware as to what had happened later on. Initially he denied and said that he did nothing to her. Thereafter, the father of the victim came to home and then only she came to know that the accused committed rape on the minor daughter of the informant. The accused appellant was also interrogated by the villagers but she is not aware as to what had happened later on. From her cross evidence it is seen that she did not see the accused entering into the house of the victim and she did not make any enquiry from the victim, as she was a deaf and dumb girl. 19. PW.3 is not an eye witness but he was present in the Namghar at the time of incident when the informant sent a small boy to the Namghar and informed the people present in the Namghar about the incident. On getting the information from the boy, he himself along with ten others came to the informant’s house and the victim through her gesture informed them that the accused committed rape on her. She also pointed her fingers towards the accused and thereafter, the accused was detained by the villagers and he was taken to the police station. 20. PW.4 is the husband of the PW.2 but he came to know about the incident on the next day, as he was busy in the Namghar for organizing the Laxmipuja. He also deposed that he came to know from his wife that the accused committed rape on the handicapped daughter of the informant who could not even walk and speak. 21. PW.5 is the victim/prosecutrix and her statement was recorded with the help of interpreter Sri Jayanta Kalita and at the time of recording of the evidence, the victim identified the accused/appellant through his photograph, which is annexed with the charge sheet and accordingly deposed that on the day of occurrence, the accused came to her house, grabbed her, disrobed her undergarments and did sexual act with her touching her private parts. Thereafter he left away. She also gave her statement before the Magistrate. From her cross evidence, it reveals that she was alone at the time of incident and she has not attended school but she denied to the suggestion put to her that the accused had not come to her house nor he sexually abused her by touching her private parts. 22. She also gave her statement before the Magistrate. From her cross evidence, it reveals that she was alone at the time of incident and she has not attended school but she denied to the suggestion put to her that the accused had not come to her house nor he sexually abused her by touching her private parts. 22. PW.6 & 7 are the Investigating Officers of this case. PW.6 conducted the preliminary investigation of the case as he was working as an attached officer in the Mazbat Police Station and started the preliminary investigation after receipt of the FIR. He proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared the sketch map and recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPC. As the victim was a deaf and dumb girl, she was produced before the Magistrate for recording her statement and the statement of the victim was also recorded with the help of the expert from Kahilipara B.D.S. Deaf and Dumb School and thereafter, the accused was produced before the learned Special Judge, Udalguri and then he was sent for judicial remand. In his cross evidence he stated that the PW.1/the informant did not state before him that his daughter had told him through her sign that the accused did bad act with her. From his cross evidence it further reveals that the PW.2 Sumi Daimary did not state before him that she saw the accused standing near the door of the victim. Rather, she saw the accused standing in front of the house of the victim. 23. PW.7 filed the charge sheet on the basis of the investigation conducted by the PW.6 and finding sufficient materials against the accused appellant, he submitted the charge sheet under Section 376AB IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 24. PW.8 is the Medical Officer who examined the victim on 25.10.2018, while he was working as an M & HO No.1 at Udalguri Civil Hospital and on his examination, it was found that there was no injury or mark of violence on her body but the hymen was found absent and on smear examination, no spermatozoa was detected. As per the radiological age, the victim was within 13 to 14 years and no recent sexual evidence was also found at the time of her examination. 25. As per the radiological age, the victim was within 13 to 14 years and no recent sexual evidence was also found at the time of her examination. 25. The learned Special Judge, Udalguri also examined the Bench Assistant who was present at the time of recording the statement of the victim, which was recorded by Smti Arpita Kar, SDJM, Udalguri and he being the Bench Assistant, he know the signatures of the said officer which he accordingly exhibited as Exhibit Nos.5(1) & 5(2) and the statement of the victim as Exhibit No.5. He further deposed that he took the thumb impression of the victim girl in the said statement, after the same was recorded by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, he also exhibited his signatures i.e. Exhibit Nos.5(3) & 5(4) on the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. From his evidence, it also reveals that the statement of the victim was recorded with the help of the interpreter. 26. From the evidence of the of the prosecution witnesses, it is seen that there is no eye witness to the prosecution case but the presence of the accused appellant in the house of the victim at the relevant time of the incident is well established through the evidence of the PW.2, which is also confirmed by the Investigating Officer that the PW.2 also stated before him that the accused was standing near to the house of the victim when she came out and rushed to the house of the victim, after hearing the alarm raised by her. It also reveals from the evidence of the other witnesses that the accused appellant also confessed before the people gathered in the Namghar and thereafter only he was handed over to the Mazbat Police Station and the FIR was lodged accordingly. 27. It also reveals from the record that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 CrPC with the help of interpreter which was accordingly video graphed as per the law and at the same time, it is also seen that the evidence of the victim/PW.5 was also recorded with the help of the interpreter, wherein through her sign language, she adduced before the Court that the accused appellant did bad act on her by touching her private parts and she also identified the accused through his photograph which was shown to her at the time of recording her evidence. 28. 28. It is a fact that the Medical Officer did not find any injury or mark of violence on the body or private parts of the victim but it is seen that the hymen was absent at the time of examination of the victim. There may be many reasons for rupturing the hymen but here in the instant case, the specific allegation has been brought against the accused appellant that he committed the act of penetrative sexual assault on the victim on the day of incident and the statement of the victim could not be rebutted by the defence neither by cross-examining her nor adducing any defence evidence. Further, it is a fact that the sign expressed by the victim at the time of recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC as well as at the time of adducing her evidence, is not recorded by the Magistrate but it is not so easy to record the sign language shown by the victim, as it is fact that the victim is also not acquainted with the sign language, which is generally taught in the school, specially for the deaf and dumb children. But from the record, it is seen that at the time of giving her statement under Section 164 CrPC, the entire evidence was recorded through video graph as per the law, which is available in the case diary. So merely not recording of the sign language of the victim, her evidence cannot be disbelieved or discarded, which is otherwise believable and trustworthy. 29. Further, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is also seen that the defence did not take the plea of any previous enmity with the informant to lodge a false case against the accused appellant. At the same time, minor age of the victim is also not challenged by the defence and thus, it is an admitted position that the victim was a minor at the relevant time of incident and she was hardly 12/13 years of age. 30. From the statement made by the accused appellant under Section 313 CrPC, it is seen that he admitted that he went to the house of the informant to drink water. 30. From the statement made by the accused appellant under Section 313 CrPC, it is seen that he admitted that he went to the house of the informant to drink water. Thus, it is an admitted fact that on the relevant day of incident, the accused appellant went to the house of the informant and thus, his own statement corroborates the evidence of the PW.2, who saw the accused standing in front of the house of the informant, when she rushed to his house hearing the alarm made by the victim. 31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Motilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2008 0 AIR (SC) 882 has held in paragraph Nos. 7 & 9 as under: "7. It is settled law that the victim of sexual assault is not treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence does not require corroboration from any other evidence including the evidence of a doctor. In a given case even if the doctor who examined the victim does not find sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. In normal course a victim of sexual assault does not like to disclose such offence even before her family members much less before public or before the police. The Indian women as tendency to conceal such offence because it involves her prestige as well as prestige of her family. Only in few cases, the victim girl or the family members has courage to go before the police station and lodge a case. In the Instant case the suggestion given on behalf of the defence that the victim has falsely implicated the accused does not appeal to reasoning. There was no apparent reason for a married woman to falsely implicate the accused after scatting her own prestige and honour. 9. A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on 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. 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 conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled 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 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short Evidence Act) similar to illustration (b) of 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. 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 own to be infirm and not trustwo thy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses 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. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash kewalchand Jain (1990 91) scc 550)." 32. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh reported in (1993) 2 SCC 622; 1993 SCC (Cri) 674 , the Hon'ble Supreme 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. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh reported in (1993) 2 SCC 622; 1993 SCC (Cri) 674 , the Hon'ble Supreme 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 the honourable Supreme Court in Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 2 SCC 9 , placing reliance an earlier judgment in Rameshwar S/o kalian Singh v. State of Rajasthan , reported in AIR 1952 SC 54 Thus the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of 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. 33. Here, in the instant case also it is seen that there found nothing to disbelieve the prosecutrix and her testimony is also found to be consistent at every stage, reliable and trustworthy. Thus, the prosecution could able to establish the foundational facts of the case. 34. As per Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the burden of rebutting the presumption is upon the accused and he cannot discharge this burden by simple denial or explanation. Section 29 of the POCSO Act, mandates legal presumption against the accused for offences under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Unlike other criminal prosecution wherein it is first presumed that an accused is innocent until proven guilty (presumption of innocence of accused) under Section 29 and 30 of POCSO Act, 2012, there is an adverse presumption of certain offences and culpable mind against the accused and the accused has to discharge that burden. But, the accused/appellant failed to discharge his burden who could not disprove the prosecution case neither by cross-examining the prosecution witnesses nor by adducing any defence evidence. 35. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Udalguri in Special POCSO Case No.05/2019. 36. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 37. 35. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Udalguri in Special POCSO Case No.05/2019. 36. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 37. This Court appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. M. Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae while conducting the case and accordingly, the Assam Legal Services Authority is hereby directed to provide his remuneration as per the applicable norm. 38. Send back the TCR forthwith with a copy of this judgment.