Point of Law: Sexual Assault - Recording of confessions and statements - Conviction upheld - Evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as initial statement given by victim child under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. substantially corroborate each other and it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that prosecution case was improbable or not credible from perspective of a prudent person.

JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against a judgment and order of conviction against the appellant under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’) whereby the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rupees Ten Thousand (Rs. 10,000/-) in default of payment, rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for three months more.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that there were several discrepancies in the prosecution case. Whereas Mamata Saha, the mother of the alleged victim stated in her complaint lodged with the police that the victim went to the house of the accused with one Unnati Tarafdar at 7:30 p.m. she stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) that the victim went with Mala Saha, which she corroborated in her deposition.

3. On the other hand, the victim was silent about such incident in her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. but deposed in evidence that she had gone with Pritanshu Tarafdar to the house of the accused.

4. Further, Mamata Saha (mother of the victim) made contradictory statements, by complaining before the police that Unnati Tarafdar had told the victim to return home and study, whereas in her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. she stated that the mother of the child Pritanshu asked the accused to drop her home. The victim, in her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. was silent on such aspect, but stated in her deposition that her aunt, Unnati told her to return to her house with the accused, whereas Mamata Saha contradicted such statement in her deposition by saying that it was Mala Saha who asked her daughter to return home.

5. That apart, Mamata, in her police complaint, stated that the victim told Paban (the accused) to take her home, whereas, in her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. Mamata Saha said that Unnati Tarafdar asked Paban to take the victim home.

6. It is next contended that, whereas the consistent statement of Mamata Saha in her complaint and statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. corroborated the stand taken by the victim in her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. and her deposition, Mamata added in her deposition that the accused ‘forcibly’ took the victim to his room.

7. Even regarding the factual details, it is submitted that there are several discrepancies between the statements made by the victim child and her mother in their statements made in deposition as well as in their statements under Section 164, Cr.P.C.

8. Learned counsel further argues that the reason for the delay of more than 24 hours in lodging the complaint after the alleged incident was never explained either by the witnesses or discovered during investigation.

9. Although the immediate neighbours or persons mentioned in the sketch map were never arrayed as charge-sheet witnesses, the Trial Court convicted the appellant without any material evidence.

10. Mamata allegedly rushed on the night of the incident to talk to the accused. While doing so, she was admittedly not accompanied by any member of her family, including her husband, or any person from the neighbourhood. That apart, none of the several family members of the accused witnessed the alleged incident, which is unusual since, at 7:30 p.m. in the evening, at least some of the family members of the accused ought to have been present in the house of the accused, particularly in view of the incident having taken place in a rural area.

11. The husband of the de facto complainant, who is admittedly the head of the family, was neither examined by the police nor produced as a witness in court. Despite there being seven rooms in the house of the accused, as extracted in evidence, the exact room where the alleged incident occurred was not identified by the police or the witnesses.

12. Above all, it is argued that the medical examination of the victim girl by two doctors ruled out any cas