The prosecution must establish foundational facts in sexual offence cases; uncorroborated testimony of the victim alone is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Ms. Meghali Barman, learned Amicus Curie, representing the victim girl.

2. This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant, namely, Shariful Islam, impugning the judgment and order dated 30.06.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Barpeta in Special POCSO Case No. 105/2019, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year.

3. The facts relevant for adjudication of the instant Criminal Appeal, in brief, are as follows:

i. That on 30.03.2018, the victim girl (name withheld for the sake of non-disclosure of identity of the victim girl) had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Barpeta Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that the victim/informant was in relationship with the above-named appellant and in course of their romantic relationship, they had physical relationship on several occasions, on the pretext that the appellant would marry the victim/informant. It is also alleged, in the FIR, that the victim also became pregnant, as a result of such relationship. It is further alleged in the FIR that on 28.03.2018, at about 11.00 pm, the appellant, Shariful Islam and one of the co-accused named in the FIR, namely Rashidul Islam, took her from her house to the field near the pond of Razak and there the appellant had physical relationship with her. Thereafter, the appellant assured that he will marry her and accordingly, took her to his house. But the parents of the appellant who were also named in the FIR assaulted the informant/victim and threw her out of their residence.

ii. On receipt of the FIR, Barpeta P.S. Case No. 650/2018 was registered under Section 120B/376/416/294/325 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was initiated. During the course of investigation, the statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thereafter, Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was also added to the case.

iii. Ultimately, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the present appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Regarding the other co-accused named in the FIR, as sufficient evidence was not available, they were not sent up for trial. However, their names were also not shown in Column No. 3 or 4 of the charge-sheet, where the names of accused persons, who are not sent up for trial ought to have been shown.

iv. The appellant faced the trial remaining on bail. On 14.08.2019, the Court of Special Judge, Barpeta, after considering the materials available on record and after hearing both the sides, framed the charges under Sections 417/376/420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the above-named appellant. When the said charges were read over and explained to him, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried. To bring home the charges against the appellant, the prosecution side examined as many as six prosecution witnesses.

v. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, during which he denied the truthfulness of the testimony of prosecution witnesses and pleaded his innocence. The appellant also adduced defence evidence by examining himself as DW-1. However, after completion of the trial the Court of learned Special Judge, Barpeta convicted the appellant and sentenced him by the impugned judgment and order in the manner as already described herein before in Paragraph No. 2 of this judgment.

4. Before considering the rival submissions made