The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of establishing charges beyond reasonable doubt in cases of sexual offences against minors, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence and reliability of the victim's testimony.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - The appellant was put on trial on a charge under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, found guilty and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years by the impugned judgement of conviction dated January 25, 2021 and the order of sentence dated January 26, 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas in Special Trial No. 07 (12) 2020 arising out of Special Case No. 51 of 2020.

2. A victim lodged a complaint with the police on December 2, 2020 complaining that, the appellant lived in the adjacent lane. The victim called him maternal uncle. The appellant used to call the victim to the house of the appellant within a gap of a few days. The appellant used to take the victim to the first floor room. After taking him there, the appellant used to take off the pant of the victim. The appellant used to take off his own trouser also. Then the appellant used to pierce his penis into the anus of the victim. The appellant used to touch the penis of the victim and suck it with his mouth. Further, the appellant used to make the victim hold the penis of the appellant and to take the same into his mouth. The victim felt pain. The appellant used to put on music on high volume so that no one could hear the shouting of the victim. The appellant occasionally used to feed the victim with roll and chowmein. The appellant took the victim at about 5:30 PM in the afternoon on December 2, 2020 to the first floor room and tried to do the same. At that time, the local residents reached there. Thereafter, the victim came to the police station.

3. On the basis of such complaint, the police investigated the case and submitted a charge sheet on December 17, 2020 under Section 6/12 of the Act of 2012. The Court framed charges against the appellant on December 21, 2020 for the offences punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Act of 2012. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. At the trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. The prosecution relied upon documents which were marked as Exhibits 1 to 11. On conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code on January 20, 2021 where he stated that, he was innocent. He however declined to produce any defence witness.

5. The victim deposed as PW 1 at the trial. He stated that, when he was playing in front of the house of the appellant, he was called inside the house of the appellant. The appellant kissed him on his cheek and inserted his penis into the anus of the victim. He narrated the incident to the local boys. The incident happened on Saturday during the period of lockdown. He stated that, the appellant committed such incidents many times with him. The appellant did the same offence before the Saturday spoken of. He identified the statement made by him to the police which was marked as Exhibit 1. He also identified the formal complaint lodged with the police which was tendered and marked as Exhibit 2. He tendered his medical examination report which was marked as Exhibit 3 as well as the consent form for the medical examination which was marked as Exhibit 4. The statement made by the victim and recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was tendered in evidence by the victim and marked as Exhibit 5.

6. In cross-examination, the victim stated that, there were 3/4 houses in between his house and the house of the appellant. Before lockdown, one autorickshaw caught fire and for such reason, he was blamed by the local people. The appellant washes vehicles. The autorickshaw which caught fire in the morning, was standing in front of the house of the appellant. The appellant, the brother of the appellant and local people asked the victim about the fire on the autorickshaw. He admitted his mistake that, the autorickshaw caught fire at his instance. He st