Facts
A child survivor was sexually assaulted by her father and the Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence of section 323, 376(2)(i), 506 IPC, section 67-B of The Information Technology Act, 2000 and under section 4 POCSO. The correctness of the said judgment is challenged on behalf of the appellant arguing denial of the offences on the basis that the child survivor was the sole witness. The court was required to, among other issues, evaluate the evidentiary value of a statement of victim recorded by a learned Magistrate under section 164 of Cr.P.C. was particularly when the victim did not support the prosecution.
Judgment
Though the court believes that “sole testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient without corroboration”, section 164 Statement is not substantive evidence, and it can be used for contradiction or corroboration”. Whatever material is collected during investigation (either in the form of panchanamas or section 164 statement) can be converted into evidence only when a certain witness deposes before the Court. This can be the same logic when the maker gives a statement before the Magistrate that is the exercise involving the maker and the Magistrate only. Thus, despite the witness account existing in the FIR, and a cross examination on the basis of contents of FIR, the appeal is partially accepted.