JUDGMENT : N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. 1. The sole accused has assailed the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act cases, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in SC No.11 of 2020 dated 16.12.2022, wherein, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner: The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant had already committed an offence under Section 302 and he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He underwent sentence for nearly 16 years and thereafter he was released and he joined his family. On 09.12.2018 at about 9.30 p.m., he approached the victim girl, who is his daughter and started sexually assaulting her by keeping his hands all over her body. The further case of the prosecution is that the appellant imagined that he had some medical complications in his throat, for which, the Doctor advised him to swallow the secretion from the vaginal tract during intercourse of 17 years old girl and if it does not happen, he would die by committing suicide and by stating so, he approached the victim girl to fulfil his wish. On this premise, the appellant had repeatedly committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. He further criminally intimidated her not to reveal this fact to anyone. 3. The victim girl while undergoing this abuse by her father was able to get hold of a handwriting note by the appellant (Ex.P2), where the appellant has attempted to justify as to why he has resorted to such conduct with his daughter. The victim girl handed over this document to her sister and she, in turn, informed the same to the mother of the victim girl. The mother of the victim girl shouted at the appellant and ultimately all the family members decided to give a complaint against the appellant. Accordingly, a complaint (Ex.P1) was given to PW5 by recording the statements of the victim girl and an FIR (Ex.P10) came to be registered in Crime No.8/2019 for offence under Sections 294(b), 506 (II) and Section 5(l), 5(n) read with 6 of the POCSO Act . 4. PW6 took up the investigation at about 8.00 a.m. and went to the scene of crime and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P7) and rough sketch (Ex.P11). 4. PW6 took up the investigation at about 8.00 a.m. and went to the scene of crime and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P7) and rough sketch (Ex.P11). The investigating officer recorded the statements of the victim girl and other witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. The accused person was arrested on the same day. The victim girl was sent for medical examination and the medical examination was conducted by PW3. PW3 gave the medical report Ex.P8 where, she made the following observation: 5. The victim girl was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P3). The investigating officer also proceeded to record the statement of the witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. The accused person was also sent for medical examination and the medical report (Ex.P9) was obtained. 6. The investigation was taken over by PW7, who received the biological report and serological report (Ex.P14 to Ex.P16). On completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be laid before the Special Court, which was taken on file in Spl. SC No.11/2020. 7. The trial Court framed charges for offence under Sections 294(b), 506(I) and Section 5(l) r/w 6, 5(n) read with 6 of the POCSO Act , 506(II) and 294(b) (3 counts). The accused denied the charges. 8. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 besides MO1. 9. The incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the accused person when he was questioned under Section 313(i)(b) of Cr.P.C. and he denied the same as false. The accused person did not examine any witness nor did he rely upon any documents. 10. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has discharged its burden by relying the foundational facts and the accused person has failed to rebut the legal presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed before this court. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 12. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed before this court. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 12. The main ground that was urged on the side of the appellant is that the victim girl has not spoken about this incident either to her mother or to her sister and after a long delay, the complaint came to be given. It is further contended that the victim girl had a relationship with another boy and this was condemned by the appellant and therefore, the victim girl has come up with a concocted story only to implicate the appellant in a false case. Even the medical evidence did not establish that the appellant has committed penetrative sexual assault upon the victim girl. 13. In the case in hand, the appellant was already a life convict, who had served sentence for nearly 16 years and ultimately came and joined his family. The perverted mind and wild imagination on the part of the appellant resulted in the appellant indulging in repeated penetrative sexual assault and sexual abuse on the victim girl. 14. A careful reading of the evidence of the victim girl (PW1) clearly explained the manner in which the appellant was abusing the victim girl. It will be too embarrassing for this Court to translate what was stated by the victim girl in the witness box and therefore, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: 15. The age of the victim girl was hardly 17 years and her age has been established by the prosecution by marking Ex.P5, Ex.P6 and Ex.P17, which show that the date of birth of the victim girl is 15.06.2002. Hence, the victim girl was a child as defined under the POCSO Act . During cross- examination of PW1, an attempt was made by the appellant only to indulge in character assassination of the victim girl as if she had a relationship with some other boy. It must be kept in mind that the victim girl is the daughter of the appellant and there was no need for the victim girl to make such allegations against the appellant. The description of the conduct of the appellant on the victim girl is certainly not a figment of imagination. It must be kept in mind that the victim girl is the daughter of the appellant and there was no need for the victim girl to make such allegations against the appellant. The description of the conduct of the appellant on the victim girl is certainly not a figment of imagination. It is a natural statement given by the victim girl with a lot of mental distress when it was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and when it was spoken to by the victim girl in the witness box. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded from the victim girl corroborates her evidence. The evidence of PW1 has not been discredited during cross-examination. 16. Apart from the above, Ex.P2 and Ex.P18 also corroborates the oral testimony of PW1. Ex.P2 is the handwritten note of the accused person where he has written as to what he attempted to do with his daughter. The handwriting contained in Ex.P2 was compared with the handwriting of the accused person by the handwriting expert and the report of the handwriting expert marked as Ex.P18 confirmed that the handwriting in Ex.P2 matched with the sample handwriting of the accused person. 17. Apart from the above, there is also medical evidence of the Doctor PW3 through whom Ex.P8 medical report was marked. The Doctor had specifically recorded that the victim girl would have been subjected to penetrative sexual assault and her hymen was not intact. 18. In a case of sexual assault, if the evidence of the victim girl is wholly reliable, the Court need not even search for corroboration and the Court has to act upon the testimony of the victim. In the case in hand, apart from the unassailable evidence of PW1, there is also sufficient corroboration available and which has been discussed supra. In the light of the above discussion, the conviction of the appellant by the trial Court is perfectly in order. 19. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the incident had taken place before the amendment came into force in the year 2019 and therefore, this Court may consider reducing the sentence to 10 years and accordingly modify the sentence. 20. 19. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the incident had taken place before the amendment came into force in the year 2019 and therefore, this Court may consider reducing the sentence to 10 years and accordingly modify the sentence. 20. Even before the amendment to Section 6 came into force on 06.08.2019, the punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault was rigorous imprisonment for a term which was not to be less than 10 years but it may extend to imprisonment for life. Thus, the imprisonment for life was available even before the amendment. The trial Court has imposed the extreme punishment of imprisonment for life on considering heinous crime committed by the appellant. 21. The appellant is the father of the victim girl and the manner in which he had abused the victim girl shows the depravity of his mind. He was already a life convict and having undergone sentence for some 16 years, the appellant has not reformed himself and has indulged in yet another heinous crime upon his own daughter. Therefore, there is no question of extending any misplaced sympathy and the appellant deserves to be imposed life imprisonment. Accordingly the sentence imposed by the trial Court is also in order and does not warrant the interference of this Court. 22. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.