The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the minor status of the victim beyond a reasonable doubt, undermining the conviction under the POCSO Act.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (Special Judge) Cachar, Silchar in SPL (POCSO) Case No.42/2017 convicting the appellant under Section 4 of POCSO Act and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a term of 6 (six) months and also convicted under Section 366 of IPC and Sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I) for 7 (seven) years and also to pay fine of Rs. 7000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a term of 3 months.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 10.07.2017, the informant, father of the victim lodged an FIR with the O/C, Jirighat P.S. stating inter alia that on 21.11.2016 at about 8.45 a.m. while the victim, who was a student of Class VIII aged about 13 years, was going to her school, the accused Ajijul Islam with the help of other FIR named accused persons kidnapped his daughter i.e. the victim girl forcibly. It is further alleged that as the victim girl did not return home they made searches and after some days during search the victim girl returned home and narrated the incident to her mother that while she was going to school on the way at Hawkip punjee area the accused Ajijul Islam and another FIR named accused Rais Ali along with other FIR named accused persons kidnapped her and kept her confined in a lonely place. It is further alleged that at the time of incident the informant was not at home.

3. Accordingly, O/C Jirighat P.S. registered Jirighat P.S. Case No. 28/2017 and he himself took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, the I.O. visited the place of occurrence, drew up a sketch map of the place of occurrence, the victim girl was recovered and he got her medically examined at SMCH, Silchar and also got her statement recorded by the Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.PC The I.O. also examined the witnesses and on completion of investigation, the I/O submitted charge sheet against the present accused person Ajijul Islam u/s 366(A) of IPC r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act.

4. The offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act being exclusively triable by the Special Court, learned SDJM(M), Lakhipur, Cachar sent the case record to the Court of the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar. In due course, upon appearance of the accused and after hearing both sides the then learned Special Judge framed formal charge u/s 366 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act against the present accused person. The charge having been read over and explained the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution examined 7 (seven) witnesses including the victim and the informant in order to establish its case. Statement of the accused person was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC Defence declined to adduce evidence.

6. The learned Session Court by the impugned Judgment, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid.

7. I have heard Mr.L.R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B.U. Laskar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

8. Let me first discuss the evidence on record.

9. PW-1 is the victim of this case. She deposed in her evidence that on 21.11.2016 she was reading in Class VIII in Lalpani M.E. School and that she knows the accused since her childhood being a co-villager. She further deposed tha