IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed the necessity of strict compliance with procedural requirements in cases involving minors under the POCSO Act, while also highlighting the importance of the defense raising relevant issues during the trial to preserve them for appeal.

JUDGMENT :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG

Heard Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned P.P for the State of Nagaland.

2. This is a criminal revision filed by the petitioner under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the judgment and order dated 14.07.2020 passed by the Special Judge, Phek Nagaland in Sessions Case No.01/2020 in GR No.02/20 arising out of Phek PS Case No.01/20 under section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act 2012 (for short POCSO, Act), section 509 of IPC and section 29 of the Police Act, whereby and by which the accused Zaphet Kuki has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 6 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-for offence under section 10 of the POCSO Act; one year imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-for offence under section 509 of the IPC and one month imprisonment under section 29 of the Police Act with default clauses.

3. The brief fact of the case leading to the filing of this petition is that on 18.01.2020 a written FIR was received from one Veshekho Vese (PW-3) by the OC Phek PS, Nagaland against the accused/appellant alleging therein that on the said date at around 9.25 AM, the accused a Havildar DEF Phek, posted at Linyu check gate while in uniform molested and attempted rape on his minor daughter while she was alone at home and requested for taking necessary action. On receipt of the said written FIR, a case was registered being W.P.S Case No.01/2020 under section 509 IPC read with section 4 of the POCSO Act and section 29 of the Police Act and investigated into.

4. After completion of investigation, the I.O laid charge-sheet against the accused to face trial for offence under section 509 IPC r/w with section 4 of the POCSO Act and section 29 of the Police Act. After taking cognizance of the case and on hearing the parties on 17.4.2020, the accused was discharged from the allegation for offence under section 4 of the POCSO Act. However, he was charged for commission of offence under section 10 of POCSO Act, r/w 509 of IPC and section 29 of the Police Act. The charges were explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. To establish its case, the prosecution has examined altogether 8 prosecution witnesses. The accused was examined and his statement recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C, where the accused denied having committed the charged offences against the victim. However, the accused did not examine any witness in his defense.

6. On completion of the trial and upon consideration and hearing the parties the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 14.07.2020 convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 6(six) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-only for offence U/S 10 of POCSO Act. Further the accused has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 1(one) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-only for offence under Section 509 IPC and 1(one) month imprisonment for offence u/s 29 of the Police Act with default clauses.

7. It is the said conviction and the order of sentences which has been assailed in this Criminal Revision Petition amongst others on the following grounds:

a) That the learned Judge, Special Court Phek has convicted the accused based on perverse and illegal findings without appreciating the facts as well as the law.

b) That the learned Judge, Special Court Phek failed to understand that under section 24 of POCSO Act, 2012, it is mandatory to record the statement of the minor child (victim) by a woman police officer in the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police.

c) That the learned Judge, Special Court Phek failed to appreciate the fact that woman police officer who recorded the statement of the child is Assistant Sub-Inspector of police below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police who is not competent in the eye of law.

d) That the learned Judge, Special Court Phek has completely failed to appreciate that