The foundational facts established by the prosecution triggered the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, and the appellant failed to prove the allegations false.

JUDGMENT :

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated March 30, 2022 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Court under POCSO Act, in Sessions Trail No. 03 (02) of 2019 arising out of Special Case No. 10 of 2018.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years with a fine of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years with a fine of Rs.50,000/-and in default of payment of the fine, he was sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

4. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

5. The victim lodged a written complaint with the Bankura women police station to the effect that the appellant managed to collect the mobile number of the victim about a year ago and used to disturb her. He used to give love proposals to her. She was not agreeable at first, but later on she agreed to such proposal. She had a prolonged love affair with the appellant. The victim also stated that one day she was called by the appellant to his shop. She went there when she was taken to an empty room above his shoe store and was forcefully raped. He asked her not to disclose the incident to anyone. The appellant, thereafter, went on with repeated physical relations with the victim on the promise to marry her. He also threatened the victim to harm her if she disclosed the incident to anybody. The appellant had a forceful physical relation with the victim about one month prior to lodging of the written complaint but thereafter, he kept no contact with the victim. She later came to know that the appellant had gone to his native place and married some other girl. Thereafter, the victim informed the incident to her parents.

6. On the basis of such written complaint, Bankura Women Police Station Case No. 29 of 2018 dated June 22, 2018 under Sections 376 (2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act was started against the appellant.

7. The police took up investigation and on completion thereof submitted charge sheet. Accordingly, on the basis of materials in the Case Diary, charges under Section 376 (2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were framed against the appellant on February 12, 2019. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. In addition, prosecution relied upon documentary and material evidences as well. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where he claimed innocence having committed no offence at all. He also alleged to have been falsely implicated in the case.

9. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges levelled against the appellant. It was contended that the prosecution has not been able to establish the allegations as set out in the First Information Report. Referring to the evidence of the prosecuterix, it was contended that there are contradictions in her statement with regard to the identification of the place of occurrence and for this reason the evidence of the victim is not at all believable.

10. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that PW1 had also alleged t