IMPORTANT POINT
The victim's evidence of sexual assault did not require corroboration, and the legal presumption against the accused under the POCSO Act was discussed and upheld by the court.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A. K. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. U. Choudhury, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.11.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Kamrup, Amingaon in Special Sessions (POCSO) Case No. 12/2016, convicting the accused/appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months, for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.09.2015, one Ms. X/victim (name withheld) lodged an Ejahar before the Officer-In-Charge, Boko Police Station alleging inter alia that on 27.09.2015, at about 3.30 p.m., while she was returning to home from shop, the accused- Kuntha Rabha accosted her on the road and caught hold of her bicycle from the backside and squeezed her breast as a result she sustained injuries. However, the victim somehow managed to save herself. Accordingly, upon receipt of the said FIR, the Officer-In-Charge, Boko Police Station, registered a case, being Boko P.S. Case No. 558/2015, under Sections 341/354 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and started investigation.

4. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the Charge-Sheet against the present accused/ appellant under Sections 341/354 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which was subsequently committed before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO) Kamrup, Amingaon and after considering the materials available on record as well as in Case Diary and also finding prima facie case under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, the Charge was accordingly framed against the accused/appellant and content of the charge was read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 6 (six) numbers of witnesses and exhibited 3 (three) numbers of documents and also recorded the statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, the defence did not examine any witnesses. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Kamrup, Amingaon, after hearing the parties and on perusal of records, vide judgment and order dated 15.11.2022, passed in Special Sessions (POCSO) Case No. 12/2016, found the accused/appellant guilty and convicted him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 5 (five) years and fine of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only and in default payment of the fine, simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months, for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

6. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 15.11.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Kamrup, Amingaon in Special Sessions (POCSO) Case No. 12/2016, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant.

7. Mr. A. K. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the learned Court below did not consider the evidence on record in its true perspective and arrived at a wrong decision which is bad in law and liable to be set aside and quashed. He further submitted that the independent witnesses did not corroborate the evidence of the victim and they are the interested witnesses which is not reliable at all to warrant conviction against the present accused/appellant. The prosecution also failed to examine any of the eye witness and also could not examined the I.O. of this case who is the most vital witness of the prosecution for the purpose of contradiction and corroboration of the witnesses. He further submitted that the P.Ws.- 1, 2 & 5 are the interested witnesses as the P.W.-1 is the