IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Most important ingredient for constituting offence of sexual assault under Section 7 of POCSO Act is “sexual intent” and not “skin to skin” contact with child.
(2) Interpretation of Section 7 of POCSO Act on the premise of principle of “ejusdem generis” would defeat very legislative intent.

JUDGMENT

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.—The appellant was convicted for committing offence punishable under Sections 448/354 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The Trial Court passed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two (02) years and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- only, in default, simple imprisonment for six (6) months for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The learned Trial Judge also handed down punishment of fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 448 of the IPC. However, no separate sentence was passed against the appellant for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC in view of the punishment under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The appellant has assailed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the instant appeal.

2. Gangajal Ghati Police Station Case No.33 of 2017 was registered on 31st May, 2017 under Section 448 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. On the basis of a written complaint submitted by one Smt. Japamala Bouri alleging, inter alia, that the accused Rohit Pal came to their house in her absence and found the minor daughter of the de facto complainant who was aged about 13 years on the date of filing of the complaint playing in the house. Suddenly, the accused caught hold of her hand and dragged her inside the house, pushed her and touched her breast and other parts of her body. He also kissed her on her face and thereby outraged her modesty. When the minor daughter of the de facto complainant cried out and struggled to set herself free from the clutches of the accused, Rohit fled away.

3. The accused was arrested during investigation of the case. The Investigating Officer examined the available witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The statement of the victim girl was also recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The victim girl and the accused were medically examined and on completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused under Section 448 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The case was committed to the Court of the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Bankura for trial.

4. The learned Trial Judge framed charge against the accused person under Sections 448/354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The accused pleaded not guilty when the charge was read over and explained to him. Hence, the trial.

5. During trial, Prosecution examined 7 witnesses. Amongst them, the de facto complainant deposed as P.W.1, P.W.2 is the victim girl. P.W.3 Ram Chandra Bouri is the uncle of the victim girl. He is also the scribe of the written complaint. P.W.4 Sasthi Bouri is the father of the victim girl and P.W.5 Smt. Jhilik Bouri is the aunt of the victim. P.W.6 is the husband of P.W.5. P.W.7, S.I. Abhirup Samanta is the Investigating Officer of this case.

6. It is submitted by Mr. Kallol Mondal, learned Advocate for the appellant that all the witnesses are closely related to the victim girl. They are the parents, uncles and aunts of the victim girl. Therefore, they are interested witnesses. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the law is tried with regard to the appreciation of evidence of independent witnesses that their evidence ought to be scrutinized with great care and caution if there are inherent contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, who are closely related with each other, it is not safe to rely on their evidence alone to record conviction against the accused.

7. In order to substantiate his argument, he refers to the written complaint submitted by P.W.1 before the Officer-in-Charge of the jurisdictional police station against the