IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, JJ.
Ananda Karmakar S/o. Sri Gopal Karmakar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Crl.A(J) 23 of 2022
Decided on : 28-06-2023
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4, 6, 2(d), 3, 7, 9(m), 10 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376(2)(i) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313, 161, 164 - Offence of penetrative sexual assault – Appeal against conviction - Father of victim “X” lodged an FIR stating that appellant took his daughter and committed ‘bad act’ on her – There are materials on record to show that appellant had committed offence of aggravated sexual assault on victim - Para 19.
Finding of the Court:
Court is of considered opinion that evidence available on record, though leads to inference that victim was subjected to sexual assault, it falls short for convicting appellant for penetrative sexual assault within meaning of offence of penetrative sexual assault as defined in Section 3 of POCSO Act, 2012 - As victim was less than 12 years of age on date when offence of sexual assault was committed on her, this case falls within meaning of aggravated sexual assault under section 9(m) of POCSO Act, 2012 - Appellant has committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on victim, hence, conviction of appellant under section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 is hereby converted into conviction under section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal (Jail) has been registered on receipt of an appeal petition from the appellant, namely, Ananda Karmakar, who has been detained in the District Jail, Tinsukia, through the Superintendent District Jail, Tinsukia, impugning the judgment dated 12.11.2021, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Tinsukia, in POCSO Case No. 12(T)/2019 whereby the present appellant has been convicted under section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20(twenty) years with a fine of Rs.2000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 6(six) months.
2. The facts relevant for adjudication for this jail appeal, in brief, are as follows:-
(i) That on 29.04.2019, the father of the victim “X”(real name not disclosed)lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of the Baghjan Police Station, inter alia, stating that on 29.04.2019 at around 3:30 p.m. the present appellant took his daughter to Section No. 16, Dighaltarang Tea Estate and committed ‘bad act’ on her. On receipt of the said FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of the Baghjan Police Station registered Baghjan PS Case No. 16/2019 under section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Panel Code read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sri Chitra Ranjan Buragohain, SI of Police was entrusted with the investigation of the case. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer, having found sufficient evidence against the present appellant, laid the charge-sheet ,against the present appellant, under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Panel Code read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 in the Court of Special Judge, Tinsukia.
(ii) The present appellant was arrested during the course of investigation and he faced trial remaining in judicial custody.
(iii) During trial, the prosecution side examined eight prosecution witnesses including the victim and nine documentary evidences were exhibited. The appellant was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, during which he pleaded his innocence. The relevant portion of his statement under the section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be discussed hereinafter in this judgment. The appellant declined to adduce any evidence in his defence. Ultimately, by the judgment, which is, impugned in this appeal, present appellant was convicted and sentenced in the manner as described in Paragraph No. 2 of this judgment herein before.
3. Before considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, let us go through the relevant evidence, which is available on record.
4. PW-1, who is the father of the victim has deposed that his daughter “X” was born on 22.11.2014 and he has exhibited the date of birth certificate of his victim daughter as M. Ext.-1. He has stated that on the day of incidence, he was in the garden on his duty and he returned back at about 4.00 p.m. and came to know that the appellant had taken away his daughter to the garden after his son (PW-3) to a shop for buying something. He also came to know that his son returned home after sometime and informed his wife that the appellant has taken away his sister to garden and on hearing this, the wife of PW-1 went in search of the victim. Thereafter, the wife of PW-1 noticed people of the locality gathered and they found that the appellant was coming with the victim on a bicycle and the victim was crying. PW-1 has also stated that his wife and the people who gathered there found that the victim was stained with mud and tea leaves had also stuck to her body. He has also stated that immediately, thereafter, his daughter (victim) was taken to the garden hospital and nurses examined her and gave her the first aid and informed his wife that they found injury in her vagina. PW-1 has further stated that when his daughter was taken to the hospital, he was informed about this and he also reached the hospital. Thereafter, he lodged an FIR which is exhibited as Ext. 1.
Punishment for aggravated sexual assault is prescribed in section 10 of POCSO, 2012.
The court established that while complete penetration is not necessary for a conviction of penetrative sexual assault, there must be sufficient evidence of acts constituting such assault as defined i....
The court emphasized the reliability of the victim's testimony while clarifying that mere sexual assault does not meet the threshold for aggravated charges under POCSO, which necessitates proof of pe....
The judgment established the distinction between sexual assault and penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act, emphasizing the requirement of evidence of penetration for the latter.
The judgment established the distinction between rape and sexual assault, emphasizing the requirement of penetration for the former, and the physical contact without penetration for the latter under ....
The appellant's position of trust and authority over the child victim led to his conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.