JUDGMENT :

Legality, propriety and correctness of the order, dated 19.02.2021, passed by the learned Sessions-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Bomdila in SC(BDL)POCSO Case No. 01/2020, under Sections 376(A)(B)/201/107/506 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, is challenged in this Criminal Revision Petition, under Sections 401/397/ 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioner Smti. Minu Nutung. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 19.02.2021, the learned Sessions-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Bomdila, has discharged respondent No.1 to 7 in the aforesaid case.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present revision petition is briefly stated as under:-

“On 16.04.2020, one Smti Minu Natung(petitioner) had lodged one F.I.R. before the Seppa Women Police Station, to the effect that her daughter, who is aged about 8(eight) years and is studying at Sunrise Residential School, Seppa was allegedly raped by one delinquent juvenile, a student of the same School, in one of the class room of the said School, in the month of November, 2019. The said incident was narrated to the petitioner by her elder daughter, who is also studing in the same school and also by victim. The elder sister of the victim had informed the incident first to a senior student and the said senior student had reported about the incident to the school authority, however, despite knowing the incident, the school authority did not inform the same to the family members of the victim. Instead, they had warned all the boarders of the hostel not to reveal the said incident to anyone else. On receipt of the aforesaid F.I.R., the Officer-in-Charge, Women Police Station, Seppa, has registered Seppa Women Police Station Case No. 01/2020, Under Sections 376(A) (B)/201/107/506 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and started investigation, which culminated in submission of Charge-Sheet dated 29.05.2020, under Sections 176/201/120(B) IPC readwith Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act, against the present 7(seven) respondents along with main offender who happened to be a juvenile. But, the learned Court below, vide the impugned order, dated 19.02.2021, discharged respondent Nos. 1 to 7 after hearing ld. Advocates of both side on the point of Charge.

3. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the present petition on the following grounds:-

(i) That, the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence on record while passing the impugned order of discharge;

(ii) That, the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the 161 statements of respondent No. 8, and Miss Angle Natung and Miss Yame Singhi and the 164 statements of both Miss Yame Singhi and the victim girl, which reveals prima facie case against all the respondents to sent them on trial;

(iii) That the learned Court has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the offence incident, medical examination and the age of victim girl;

(iv) That, the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the prosecution story;

(v) That, the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the 161 statements of Yame Singhi, Shri Roop Jyoti Kotoky, and Shri Chandra Baishnav, wherein they have stated that after the school authority got information regarding the sexual offence they warned the students not to tell anyone about the incident and pressurized Smti. Yame Singhi, to change her statement about the incident and not to disclose the incident to anyone and that Smti Linda Sema also instructed her to manipulate her statement.

(vi) That, the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the prosecution story and 161 statements of all the respondents that they decided not to inform the said incident to any person including the Chairperson of the said school.

(vii) That, the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that after getting the information regarding sexual offence, the said School teachers/authority gave strict direction to the victim and the students not reveal the inciden