The judgment emphasizes the importance of evaluating witness demeanor and corroborating evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases of sexual assault against minors.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - The appellant has assailed the judgement and order of conviction dated September 5, 2019 and the order of sentence dated September 6, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Judge, Special Court (POCSO) Act, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Special S T No. 12(11) 16 arising out of Special Case No. 45/2016.

2. By the impugned judgement and order of conviction dated September 5, 2019, the appellant has been found guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (i)/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. By the impugned order of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of fifteen years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one year more. Under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of five years and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months more for the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. No separate sentence has been passed against the appellant for committing offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code in terms of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 50 per cent of the amount of fine, if realized, has been directed to be paid to the victim child. In addition thereto, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been directed to be paid to the victim under the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017.

4. Briefly stated, the prosecution has claimed that, the prosecution witness (PW)-2 lodged a complaint with the Nadial Police Station on December 9, 2016. In such police complaint, the PW-2 had stated that, in the morning of December 9, 2016, his elder sister went to Khaderi Hospital for the eye operation of his mother. The brother in law of PW-2 had gone to his place of work. During such period, the two nieces one of whom was the victim were alone at her sister's house. At around 11.30 A.M, the sister of PW-2 had instructed her to go to her house to look after his nieces. In terms of such instructions, PW-2 had visited the house and found the appellant lying in a naked condition upon the victim with the trouser and under garment of the appellant being lowered. Immediately after PW-2 had entered the room, appellant stood up leaving the victim on the floor. The victim had confided in PW-2 that the appellant was committing obscene deeds with her. Immediately, PW-2 had called his sister over the phone. His sister informed the father of the victim.

5. The police had registered the complaint of the PW-2 as Nadial Police Station Case No. 20/16 dated February 19, 2016 under Section 376(2)(i)/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The police had submitted a charge sheet against the appellant being Nadial Police Station charge sheet No. 49/16 dated April 20, 2016 for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

6. By an order dated July 29, 2021 the High Court Legal Services Committee was requested to appoint a Counsel to represent the appellant in the present appeal. Mr. Mainak Bakshi, Advocate, had been appointed as the Counsel for the appellant by the High Court Legal Services Committee.

7. Mr. Mainak Bakshi, learned Advocate for the appellant, has taken us through the deposition of the wrosecution witnesses and to the evidence on record. He has submitted that, the appellant was charged with sexual assault on the victim. He has referred to the medical examination report of the victim being exhibit 4 and 8. He has submitted that, neither exhibit 4 nor exhibit 8 has conclusively proved any sexual assault on the victim. He has referred to the evidence of the doctor produced as a prosecution witness. He has contended that, the doctor state