The court upheld the conviction for abduction and rape based on testimonial and medical evidence, emphasizing the validity of medical age assessment in absence of primary documents.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. L.R. Majumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent as well as Ms. Debashree Saikia, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. This appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973, has been filed by the appellant Sofa Uddin, impugning the judgment and order dated 20.12.2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional Session Judge cum Special Judge, Cachar in Special (POCSO) Case No. 23/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 366 /376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and was sentenced only under Section 366 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The appellant was also convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 6 months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that, on 02.02.2018, the respondent No. 2, (informant) Md. Suleiman Uddin, had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Katigorah Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that on 30.01.2018, when the minor daughter of the informant went outside the house at about 11.00 pm to attend the call of nature, the appellant forcefully dragged her towards his house. Though, the daughter of the informant, raised hue and cry, however, she could not be rescued from the clutches of the appellant. The appellant took the daughter (hereinafter referred to as “X”) of the informant to his house and committed rape on her.

4. It is also alleged in the FIR that earlier also, on 20.11.2017, the appellant had abducted another daughter (hereinafter referred to as “Y”) of the informant and kept her in his house and committed rape on her for several days and thereafter, handed her to a fellow villager, namely, Jasimuddin.

5. It is also stated in the FIR that when the alleged offences were committed, both the daughters of the informant (respondent No. 2) were minors.

6. On receipt of this said FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of the Katigorah Police Station registered the Katigorah P. S. Case No. 92/2018 under Sections 366 /376(1)/343 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , read with section 4/8/12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

7. Ultimately, on completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the appellant under section 366A/376(2)/343 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 in the Special (POCSO) Case No. 23/2018.

8. After going through the materials on the record and after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides, on 21.07.2018, the learned Additional Session, Judge, Cachar framed the charges under Sections 366 /376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, against the present appellant. When the said charges were read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty to the same and