The court reinforced the importance of proving victim’s age via school records under the Juvenile Justice Act, alongside acknowledging that minor discrepancies in testimony do not discount credibility if they do not materially affect the prosecution case.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Mr. D. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. O. Perme, learned Legal Aid Counsel, representing the respondent No. 2/informant.

2. The present appeal has been instituted by the appellant, assailing the judgment and order, dated 01.08.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Khonsa Sessions Division, Tirap District in Khonsa/SC (POCSO) Case No. 06/2023, convicting the appellant under Section 354A IPC and Section 10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short, The POCSO Act) and sentencing him to 5 (five) years imprisonment, under Section 10 of The POCSO Act with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in default, to suffer further detention for a period of 6 (six) months.

3. Facts of the case in brief requisite for the purpose of adjudication of the present appeal is noticed as under.

(i). On 03.09.2023, the Principal of Ramakrishna Sardar Mission School, Khonsa, Pravrajika Vedatmaprana lodged an FIR to the effect that on the previous day, a student of the school, aged about 15 (fifteen) years, studying in Class-IX, was molested one by one of the employees of the school, working as a Peon, namely Shri Rajkishore Mali, by touching her private parts.

(ii). On receipt of the said FIR, the Police of Khonsa Police Station registered the same as Khonsa P.S. Case No. 16/2023, under Sections 354 IPC, read with Section 10 of The POCSO Act. The Investigating Officer had arrested the appellant on 03.09.2023. Thereafter, the statement of the victim girl was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khonsa, on 22.09.2023, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On culmination of the investigation, the Investigating Officer having found a prima facie case established under Section 354 IPC, read with Section 10 of The POCSO Act, proceeded to file a Charge-sheet in the matter against the appellant, herein.

(iii). The learned Trial Court, upon hearing the prosecution as well as the appellant, proceeded to frame charges under Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of The POCSO Act against the appellant. The appellant having not pleaded guilty against the charges so framed against him, the learned Trial Court proceeded to try the appellant basing on the charges levelled against him.

(iv). During the trial, the prosecution had examined 8 (eight) witnesses including the informant, victim and the Investigating Officer. No defence witnesses were examined by the appellant herein. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant herein under Section 354A IPC and Section 10 of The POCSO Act.

(v). Reckoning the provisions of Section 42 of The POCSO Act, the punishment provided under the provisions of Section 10 of The POCSO Act being greater in degree, the learned Trial Court proceeded to sentence the appellant herein under the provisions of Section 10 of The POCSO Act to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years with a fine of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand). In default, it was provided that he shall suffer further imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months. The period of detention undergone by the appellant herein was directed to be set off from the total period he was so sentenced.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the conviction and sentencing of the appellant herein, has submitted that the learned Trial Court, while proceeding to hold the appellant guilty of the charge levelled against him under Section 10 of The POCSO Act, had failed to get the age of the victim determined in the manner as contemplated