The prosecution must prove allegations of sexual harassment beyond reasonable doubt, and victim testimony requires corroboration to be credible.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for Respondent No.1 as well as Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the Respondent No.2.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sivasagar in Special (P) Case No.34 of 2017. The appellant was convicted under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and under Section 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

3. On 05.07.2017, the Respondent No.2, being the wife of the present appellant, had lodged an FIR before police alleging that the appellant was sexually harassing their 16 years old daughter for a long time. The appellant was allegedly throwing obscene languages at the girl causing mental harassment to her.

4. On 25.04.2017, the young girl had disclosed those things to her mother/informant.

5. Police registered the case as Bihubor P.S. Case No.37 of 2017 under Sections 354 /294 and 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . On conclusion of investigation, police filed they charge sheet under Sections 294 and 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act against the present appellant.

6. During the trial, the prosecution side examined as many as 10 witnesses. The appellant examined himself and another witness in defence.

7. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 6 , 18 and 10 of the POCSO Act. He was also convicted under Section 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

8. I have carefully gone through the prosecution evidence as well as the defence evidence.

9. The first prosecution witness to be examined was the informant/the Respondent No.2. She is the wife of the appellant. She has stated that at the time of the occurrence, all three were living together. On 25.04.2017, the appellant had assaulted her. The reason for quarrel was that her daughter had told her that while she was preparing for her Class-X examination, the appellant being the father, had come into her room and showed his penis. Next morning, the witness left her matrimonial house with her three daughters. They went to the house of her parents.

10. In her cross-examination, the informant witness has stated that after the birth of her second child, she had left her matrimonial home because of quarrels with her husband, the appellant. She denied the suggestion that after her leaving matrimonial house, she stayed in the house of Fajar Ali for about two months. She says that in the year 2006, her husband once pronounced talak to her. According to this witness, after the said talak, she was taken back by her husband. She has admitted that she used to talk to Fajar Ali and her husband did not like that.

11. The second prosecution witness is the victim girl. She says that the appellant tried to touch her body on the pretext of determining how she was growing. He even wanted to kiss her on many occasions. Whenever she told him that she would be informing her mother about his conduct, he assaulted her. The young girl says that her father took her to the school and as she knew the conduct of her father, she used to hold the school bag on her chest. In that condition, her father used to touch the school bag. The young girl has stated that at night her father asked to see his sexual accomplice with his wife.

12. The victim has stated in her evidence that whenever h