The court clarified the interpretation and application of Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 42 of the POCSO Act in determining the appropriate conviction and sentencing.

Heard Mr. R. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1. Also heard Ms. P. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2.

2. In this appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., the appellant, namely, Md. Samed Ali has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 14.03.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sonitpur at Tezpur, in Special (POCSO) Case No. 6/2021.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 14.03.2023, the learned Court below has convicted the appellant under Section 354 IPC, read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation under Section 354 of the IPC and also sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation, under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

4. The background facts leading to filing of the present appeal are briefly stated as under:

“On 08.01.2021, at about 7:30 p.m. in the evening, the daughter of Rajen Rabha Smt. X (name withheld), aged about 16 years, was cleaning utensils near the well of her house, then appellant Samed Ali came there and enquired her the whereabouts of her father, and then she told him that her father is not present in the house. Then, he embarrassed her and dragged her and also touched her private parts and then, the victim raised hue and cry and thereafter, the appellant fled away from the place of occurrence and before fleeing away from the place of occurrence, he threatened her not to disclose the said fact to anybody, else threatened to kill her. Then, her father, the informant, returned home and she had reported the matter to him and then the informant on 09.01.2021, lodged one FIR with the Salonibari Police Out Post, upon which the In-charge of Salonibari Police Out Post recorded a G.D. Entry No. 178 dated 09.01.2021 and forwarded the same to the Officer-in-charge of Tezpur Police Station, upon which the Officer-in-charge of Tezpur Police Station registered a case being Tezpur P.S. Case No. 63/2021, under Sections 354A/506 IPC, read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act and endorsed S.I. Dimbeswar Dahal to investigate the same.

The I.O. then visited the place of occurrence and examined the witnesses and prepared sketch map of the place of occurrence and got the victim examined by doctor and also got her statement recorded by the Magistrate and arrested the appellant and forwarded him to the Court and on completion of investigation, the I.O. laid charge-sheet, being charge-sheet No. 36/2021 dated 31.01.2021, against the appellant to stand trial in the Court, under Sections 354A/506 of the IPC, read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

The learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sonitpur at Tezpur, on production of the appellant before the Court, complied with the provision of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. and upon hearing the learned Advocates of both the parties, framed charge against the appellant under Section 354 of the IPC, read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and on being read and explained the same to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand trial. Thereafter, the learned Court below has examined as many as thirteen witnesses and also examined the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter, upon hearing the learned Advocates of both the parties, the learned Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.”

5. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the following grounds:

(i) That, the learned Court below has mechanically passed the judgment and order dated 14.03.2023, without interpreting and analyzing Section 8 of the POCSO Act in the light of the evidence on record.

(ii) That, the prosecution side has failed to adduce cogent evidence to bring home the charge under Section 354 of the IPC, read with Section