IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that an individual can be held liable for abetting an offence under the POCSO Act, 2012 if they intentionally aid or facilitate the commission of the offence.

JUDGMENT :

(Budi Habung, J.) :

1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, 1973 is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the learned Court of Special Judge, (POCSO), Lower Subansiri/Kurung Kumey/Kra Daadi/Kamle District, Ziro, whereby, the accused/applicant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20(twenty) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only, in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 1(one) year for the offence under Section 17 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The accused No.1 Godak Tamin was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50000/- only, in default of payment of fine to undergo further SI for 1 (one) year for offence under section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. It is informed to this court that the said co-accused Godak Tamin choose not to file any appeal before this Court.

3. In view of the aforesaid, this Court required to assess the prosecution case qua the appellant only, who was accused No.2 in POCSO CASE (Z) No.07/2021 arising out of Raga PS Case No.12/2021.

FACTS OF THE CASE

4. The fact leading to the conviction of the accused is that on 28.05.2021 at about 1010 hours, a written FIR was received by the Officer-In-Charge Police Station, Raga from one Shri Tagru Tasing (PW-1) to the effect that on the night of 29.01.2021, Shri Godak Tamin (A1) forcefully raped his minor daughter Ms. XXX (name withheld and hereinafter referred as victim) in the house of appellant Smti. Godak Sappi (A-2) at Radum village, where the victim was invited by the appellant to stay with her. On receipt of the written FIR, the case was registered being Raga P.S. Case No. 12/2021 under Section 376(2)(i) IPC R/W Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and investigated into. Basing on the statement of the victim the accused persons were arrested. As per the report P/Ext-4 the victim was aged about 10 years and She passed her class IV (four) in the academic session 2020-21 and as such, at the time of incident, she was a “Child” within the meaning of Clause (d) of section 2 (1) of the POCSO Act.

5. On completion of investigation, the IO found sufficient materials against both the accused persons and laid charge-sheet against the co-accused Godak Tamin under Section 376 AB, R/W Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and against the appellant Godak Sappi under Section 17 of POCSO Act. On committal of the case, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Ziro framed charge against the co-accused Godak Tamin under Sections 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 376(3) IPC and the accused appellant Godak Sappi was charged under Section 17 of POCSO Act, 2012. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. To bring home to the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesses and also relied upon various document duly proved during the course of the trial. After completion of prosecution evidences, the accused were examined and their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The plea of accused persons were of total denial. The co-accused Godak Tamin also pleaded alibi stating that he did not visit the house of A2 on the alleged incident day and adduced evidence of two defence witnesses in support of his case; however, the appellant did not produce any defence witness.

7. On completion of trial, the learned Special Judge found that the prosecution has proved its case against both the accused. The co-accused Godak Tamin was found guilty of commission of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on minor victim punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and the appellant has been found to have abetted the co-accused Godak Tamin to commit the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim punishable under Section 17 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment f