IMPORTANT POINT
The consistency, coherence, and trustworthiness of the evidence, the application of presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut these presumptions are central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

1. The appellant/convict in Special Trial No. 54 of 2017, has preferred the instant appeal to challenge the judgment dated October 14, 2022 of the Special Court under POCSO Act, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair, in the said Session Trial.

2. The Trial Court has convicted the present appellant and sentenced him for an offence under Section 9 (m) of the POCSO Act 2012, which is punishable under Section 10 of the said Act, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of rupees ten thousand. The Trial Court has also awarded compensation to the victim girl to the tune of rupees one lakh. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed further, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months more.

3. Mr. Alokesh Sarkar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant/convict has placed his submissions on the points that the prosecution has been unsuccessful in proving the charges against his client beyond scope of all reasonable doubt. He has specifically stressed on the points that in this particular case there has been a delay of two days’ in filing the FIR, which the prosecution has failed to prove the reason for. He has further submitted that the prosecution is far away from examining any trustworthy and independent witness and instead produced before the Trial Court, the witnesses who must be considered to be interested witnesses and who must not be relied on.

4. Mr. Alokesh Sarkar also pointed out that in spite of there been ample opportunity to the prosecution to cite and produce independent witnesses, it has failed in duty to cite any of them. On behalf of the appellant, Mr. Alokesh Sarkar has placed sufficient reliance upon the defence witness to submit that the prosecution case has been duly vitiated by the cogent and sufficient evidence from defence. On the grounds as above, Mr. Alokesh Sarkar has urged that the Trial Court’s judgment as mentioned above may be set aside and his client be acquitted and immediately released from custody.

5. Ms. A.S. Zinu is representing the State in this case. She has raised strong objection to the submissions made on behalf of the defence. According to Ms. Zinu, it is the coherent and trustworthy evidence of the victim as well as the other witnesses on the basis of which the Trial Court has came to a just finding regarding due proof of prosecution’s case. Ms. Zinu has gone that far to submit that in view of the consistent and emphatic evidence of the victim girl, the case of the prosecution may be considered to have been proved beyond scope of all reasonable doubt, even without corroboration with any other witnesses. So far as the point of delay in filing the FIR, Ms. Zinu, has pointed out that the father of the victim (PW-3) in his cross-examination has duly and conclusive explained the reason for the delay which, according to her cannot be overruled in view of socio economic background of the victim and her family.

6. So far as the point raised on behalf of the appellant regarding non availability of the medical evidence is concerned, Ms. Zinu has stated that the facts and circumstances of this particular case and the nature of offence as alleged would not specifically require corroboration of any medical expert or related documents.

7. The State has further made out its case on the basis of Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, 2012. It has been submitted that after the foundational facts are brought on record by the prosecution, the presumption under Section 29 of the Act would apply to shift the burden of proving innocence, to the accused person i.e. the appellant here. On this point, it is stated that the appellant has miserably failed to discharge any such burden to rebut the presumption or law against him under both the aforestated provisions of law. Under such circumstances and under the object and scheme of this special statues, it is only just and proper that the trial Court has found guilty of the accused person to the standard