IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that consistent testimony from a minor, corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to uphold a conviction for sexual offences under IPC and POCSO Act.

JUDGMENT :

Budi Habung, J.

Heard Ms. S. V. Darang, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1; and Ms. N. Danggen, learned legal aid counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This criminal jail appeal has been registered based on the forwarding of the appeal filed by the convict, Shri Jayaprakash P.D as per the notification No. 32 dated 23.05.2022 issued by the Registrar (Judicial) Gauhati High Court. The Additional Sessions Judge, Basar Leparada in BSR/POCSO-09/19 convicted the appellant Jayaprakash P.D and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 10 (ten) years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand) for the offence under Section 377 IPC, and 20 (twenty) years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand) for the offence under Section 5(f)(l)(m)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 with default clause under Section 377 of IPC R/w Section 5(f)(l)(m)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The brief fact of the case leading to the filling of the present appeal is that on 03.07.2019 at around 21:15 hrs, a written FIR was received from one Shri Tai Mara Leyu, of Poda Mara village, Taliha, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo to the effect that one Shri Jayaprakash P.D, the principal of Silver Hills Public School, Daporijo has been sexually assaulting his minor son (name withheld to be known as victim hereinafter) aged about 8 (eight) years since last 2 (two) months. The said FIR further alleged that when the informant took the victim out of the hostel to buy him slipper (chappal) the victim was seen limping, on being asked the victim disclosed that the accused/principal did not provide him separate bed and forced him to sleep in his bed to satisfy his lust and sexually assaulted him every night. Basing on the above written FIR, the Officer-In-Charge of Daporijo police station, had registered it as DRJ PS.Case No. 40/2019 under Section 377 of IPC read with section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and investigated the matter.

4. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer found prima facie case against the accused Jayaprakash P.D and submitted Charge-Sheet No. 24/2019 on dated 25.07.2019 for offence under Section 377 of IPC R/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused under Section 377 of IPC and under Section 5(f)(l)(m)/6 of POCSO Act on 04.12.2019. The Charge-Sheet so framed was read over and explained to the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. During the trial, the prosecution side has examined altogether 8 (eight) prosecution witnesses and also exhibited some documents and materials exhibit and thereafter, the accused was examined and his statement was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, in which, the accused has pleaded innocent. The accused also examined 1(one) defense witness i.e., the accused himself and cross examined the prosecution witnesses.

6. On conclusion of trial and on being found the accused guilty of commission of charged offence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO) by the impugned judgment dated 28.06.2021 convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand) for the offence under Section 377 IPC and 20 (twenty) years rigorous imprisonment and a find of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) for offence under Section 5(f)(l)(m)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 only with default stipulation which is under challenge in the instant criminal jail appeal.

SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE FOR THE APPELLANT:

7. Ms. S. V. Darang, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submits that although as per the evidence there were other children who were also sleeping in the same room where the accused/principal and the victim were sleeping but none of them has seen the alleged incident of sexual assault on the victim. It is further submitted that no rough sketch map was also d