Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR
Jay Sengupta, Md. Nizamuddin, JJ.
Tankeshwar Das - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondent
CRA/5/2022
Decided On : 20-02-2024
POCSO Act - Sexual Offences - 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, 315 of the Indian Penal Code - Summary: The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellant under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and sentencing him for committing the offence punishable under section 315 of the Indian Penal Code. The court highlighted the testimony of the victim girl, medical evidence, and the presumption under section 29 of the POCSO Act in supporting the prosecution's case. The court emphasized the lack of explanation provided by the accused and the absence of contradiction in the defense evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appellant's conviction under section 6 of the POCSO Act and section 315 of the Indian Penal Code for sexually assaulting his minor daughter, leading to pregnancies and abortions. The victim girl lodged an FIR after confiding in Panchayat authorities and disclosed the incidents, leading to the appellant's conviction and sentencing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the victim girl's testimony reliable and trustworthy, supported by medical evidence and the presumption under section 29 of the POCSO Act. The court emphasized the lack of contradiction in the defense evidence and the absence of explanation provided by the accused during examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: The issues involved the reliability of the victim girl's testimony, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the absence of contradiction in the defense evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, medical evidence, and the presumption under section 29 of the POCSO Act to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The lack of explanation provided by the accused and the absence of contradiction in the defense evidence further supported the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the appellant's conviction and sentencing under the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code.
JUDGMENT :
JAY SENGUPTA. J.
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of the conviction and sentence dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court (POCSO Act), Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair in Special Case No. 27 of 2018 : Special Trial No. 10 of 2019, thereby convicting the appellant under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rupees Two Lakhs and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years with a fine of Rupees Ten Thousand for committing the offence punishable under section 315 of the Indian Penal Code, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. If the fine was paid by the convict, the same was to be paid to the victim girl/survivor to meet her medical expenses and rehabilitation. By the same order, the co-accused/wife of the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The Administration was also advised to pay Rupees Ten Lakhs as compensation.
2. At this stage, it is submitted on behalf of the State that the girl is presently staying at an Ashram and the fine amount paid has already been released in her favour.
3. On 25.04.2018 the victim girl (PW1) lodged an FIR being Humfrigunj PS Case No. 35/2018 dated 25.04.2018 under sections 376(2)/313/506 of the IPC and sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act. It was alleged that the appellant being the own biological father of the minor victim girl committed penetrative sexual assaults upon her since 2015, which led to her pregnancies and consequent abortions. Soon after the incident of 2018, the victim went to the Panchayat authorities and disclosed everything. She was taken to the police station thereafter where she lodged the complaint.
4. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was submitted under sections 376(2)/313/506/34 of the IPC read with sections 5/6/21 of the POCSO Act. Charges were framed.
5. During trial as many as 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution while two witnesses were adduced by the defence.
6. PW-1 was the victim girl herself. She elaborately stated about the sequence of events and the manner in which the appellant committed sexual assault upon her and the knowledge about the subsequent events by the co-accused/mother of the victim. She also referred to her birth certificate as well as the documents pertaining to her abortion. During cross, few commonplace suggestions were given about a possible affair with a third person. PW-2 was the Gram Panchayat Pradhan to whom the victim girl for the first time confided about the incident on 25.04.2018. She came there with relevant documents. PW-3 was the Ward Member present there. PW-4 was the Police Constable and PW-5 was the Police Head Constable who, respectively acted as the scribe and the facilitator in registering such FIR. PW-6 was the Doctor who conducted the termination of the pregnancy in 2018. However, at that time there was no mention about who was responsible for the pregnancy. PW-7 was the Doctor who prepared the injury report of the victim. PW-8 examined the victim girl medically. In the cross, some discrepancy was suggested in respect of the particular form that was filled up. PW-9 was the Inspector of Police who filed chargesheet. PW-10 was the Panchayat Secretary who was a witness to the statement of the victim girl before the police. PW-11 was the Medical Officer who examined the appellant and found him capable of committing such sexual act. PW-12 was the Investigating Officer of the case to whom a suggestion was made in the cross about the purported delay in lodging FIR.
7. In the examination of the two accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused made a simple denial and did not provide for any explanation in respect of the pregnancies of the victim girl, far less any illusion to the involvement of a third person.
8. DW-1 was another daughter of the appellant and DW-2 wa
AI
A conviction under the POCSO Act requires credible evidence, and the absence of medical corroboration can undermine the prosecution's case.
Failure to disprove the accusations leads to conviction under the POCSO Act despite absence of physical evidence.
The court established that child witness testimony, if credible and corroborated, can be sufficient for conviction under the POCSO Act.
The court affirmed that a victim's credible testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, is sufficient to establish guilt under the POCSO Act, overriding the need for further corroboration unless ....
The court affirmed that the sole testimony of a victim can suffice for conviction in sexual assault cases if deemed credible, despite medical evidence limitations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
