JUDGMENT :

Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J.

1. Heard Mr. U.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondents. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, we deem it appropriate that notice need not be served on the prosecutrix respondent No. 2.

2. An Ejahar dated 08.11.2017 was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge of Patacharkuchi Police Station by the prosecutrix respondent No. 2, inter alia stating that the respondent No. 2 had a relation with the accused petitioner for about two months, but because of his bad character, she had discontinued the relationship. In the evening of 07.11.2017, when the prosecutrix respondent No. 2 proceeded to the Rash Mahotsav at Baghmara with a friend Barasha Das, the accused petitioner followed her and at about 9.30 p.m. clutched her hand and dragged her away. When the friend of the prosecutrix respondent No. 2 tried to restrain the accused petitioner, he had scolded her and dragged away the prosecutrix respondent No. 2 and took her to one of his friend house at Sukulipar on a motor cycle.

3. It was further stated that when the prosecutrix respondent No. 2 raised hue and cry, the accused petitioner gagged her mouth and took her inside the house. It was alleged that upon taking her inside the house, the accused petitioner forcefully raped and confined her there for about one hour. Upon such ejahar being lodged, Patacharkuchi P.S. Case No. 785/2017 was registered under Section 366/342/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

4. The respondent No. 2 was examined and her statement was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Upon investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused petitioner vide Charge-Sheet No. 417/2017 dated 04.12.2017 under Section 366/342 IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

5. During the trial, 7 witnesses were examined including the prosecutrix respondent No. 2 as PW-1 and the prosecutrix exhibited the FIR as Exhibit-1, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit-2, Seizure list as Exhibit-3, Medical Examination Report as Exhibit-4, Sketch map as Exhibit-5, Charge-sheet as Exhibit-6 and photocopy of the HSLC Admit Card as Material Exhibit-1, which was under objection.

6. According to the petitioner, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of the accused petitioner was taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the matter was fixed for argument on 03.09.2018.

7. The argument was heard on 27.09.2018 and 09.10.2018 and the next date i.e. 22.10.2018 was fixed for judgment. But as the accused petitioner remained absent, the judgment was not delivered and in turn NBWA was issued against him. The petitioner approached the High Court by filing Crl. Petition No. 1142/2018 against the NBWA and by the order dated 15.11.2018 he was allowed to appear before the trial Court.

8. Due to certain intervening circumstance, the accused petitioner had the apprehension that proper justice may not be meted to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bajali and consequently, preferred transfer petition before the High Court which was registered as Crl. Misc. (T) Case No. 32/2018. But during the pendency of the said petition, the presiding officer was transferred and was replaced by another officer and in the resultant situation, the transfer petition stood rejected by the order dated 21.02.2019.

9. As a result, the matter was again fixed for argument on 02.04.2019. The accused petitioner submitted a written argument on 12.04.2019 and also advanced oral argument and accordingly 26.04.2019 was fixed for judgment. According to the petitioner in his written argument so submitted, he had taken a stand by narrating certain circumstance that the age of the prosecutrix respondent No. 2 on the date of occurrence was more than 18 year and therefore, the provisions of POCSO Act would not be attracted.

10. According to the petitioner, as he had taken a substantive stand that the prosecut