JUDGMENT

P.J. Saikia, J

Heard learned amicus curiae Mr. S. Islam for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P., Ms. B. Bhuyan for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in POCSO Case No. 41/2017 (GR Case No. 2907/2017), by which, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 14 (fourteen) years and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only with default stipulation.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to the prosecution case against the appellant -the appellant is the father of a minor girl. When she was in Class-VI, since then, the appellant used to sexually assault her. She complained to her mother on several occasions, but the mother did not believe her. Finally, on one occasion, the mother saw some incident of sexual assault upon her daughter and since then, she had quarreled with her husband. In the meantime, the minor attained puberty. It is alleged that on the third day of attaining puberty, the appellant committed forcible penetrating sex upon her. After knowing about that incident, the mother became angry and the appellant even tried to strangulate his wife.

4. Since prior to that occasion, the wife of the appellant had already informed the villagers about the activity of the appellant and on the day, when the appellant had committed rape upon her daughter, she invited the village Gaonburha and other relatives to her house. Thereafter, the Gaonburha had lodged the FIR alleging the aforesaid facts.

5. During the period of investigation, the victim girl was subjected to medical examination. The report of the doctor goes like this –

“On genital examination: Genital organs were developed. Vulva is healthy

Hymen: Old tear at 3 and 9 O’clock position. Vagina and cervix is healthy. Uterus not palpable per abdomen. Vaginal smears were taken from posterior fornix in and around the cervix result of which does not show any spermatozoa.

Urine for beta HCG (pregnancy kit test): Negative

OPINION:- On the basis of Physical examination, Radiological & Laboratory Investigation done on Smti. Dulumoni Nahardeka, I am of the opinion that –

(1) Evidence of recent sexual intercourse not detected on her person;

(2) Evidence of recent injury not detected on her private parts;

(3) Her age is above 12 years and below 14 years;

(4) Evidence of pregnancy not detected on her person. Ext. 4 is the Medico-legal Report wherein Ext.4(1) to Ext.4(3) are my signatures.

I have placed my report before the Head of the Department, who concurred with my findings and forwarded the same. Ext. 4(4) is the signature of Dr. RK Gogoi, Professor & Head of the Forensic Medicine.

Old tear at 3 and 9 O’clock position mentioned in 20(c) in the Medicolegal Report is suggestive of vaginal penetration.”

6. The victim girl was also brought before a Judicial Magistrate, for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., who recorded her statement.

7. Finally, on completion of the police investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant.

8. The trial court framed the charges under Section 376(2)(i)/307 IPC and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant denied the charges.

9. The prosecution side examined 7 witnesses including the Police Officer and the doctor, who had examined the victim girl at the time of police investigation to bring home the guilt of the appellant. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC, wherein the accused person pleaded innocence. However, no defence evidence was adduced by the appellant.

10. On appreciation of evidence, learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment and order and awarded sentence as indicated above.

11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned amicus curiae and the learned Addl. P.P. and scrutinized the evidence brought on record.

12. The first prosecution witness examined is the victim girl.