A minor's consent is immaterial in sexual offences; the victim's credible testimony establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

1.Heard Dr. B.N. Gogoi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate and Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam assisted by Ms. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Ms. M. Barman, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent no.2, who is the informant (mother of the victim).

2. The present appeal is against the impugned judgment dated 14.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar in Special (POCSO) Case No.28/2022, arising out of Sivasagar P.S. Case No.129/2022, by which the appellant Madhurjya Hazarika has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, which means imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), in default rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten) years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months under Section 366 of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR dated 18.03.2022 was submitted by the Prosecution Witness (PW) No.2, who is the mother of the victim to the Officer-in-Charge, Sivasagar Police Station, stating that her daughter had left their home at around 01:00 p.m. on Friday, i.e. 18.03.2022 to celebrate Holi at a nearby location. However, she had not returned home even till 07:00 p.m. Despite making an extensive search for her, they had not been able to locate the victim. The FIR stated that her daughter was 13 years of age with a height of approximately 4 feet. She was fat and had a fair complexion. Pursuant to the FIR, Sivasagar P.S. Case No.129/2022 under Section 366 of IPC was registered and one Manurupa Chutia (PW-9) was entrusted to investigate the case.

4. After taking the statement of PW-2, PW-9 seized the Birth Certificate of the victim and proceeded towards the house of the informant. PW-9 then recorded the statements of PW Nos.3, 4 & 8. PW-9 was thereafter informed on the next day about 10:00 a.m over phone that the appellant had taken away her daughter and that the victim daughter was with the appellant. The informant thereafter brought the victim and the appellant to the police station on being informed by PW-9 to bring them to the police station. After interrogating the victim and the appellant, PW-9 sent the victim to One Stop Centre as it was already evening, due to which she was not sent to hospital, as Doctors were not usually available for medical examination at night.

5. After sending the victim for medical examination and examining the witnesses, PW-9 submitted a Charge-sheet against the appellant and the co- accused one Sahil Ahmed on finding prima facie case against them under Section 366 of IPC. The Charge-sheet also found a prima facie case under Section 376(3) IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the present appellant and against the co-accused Sahil Ahmed under Section 109 of IPC read with Section 17 of POCSO Act.

6. After the case was committed to the learned Trial Court, Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 366/376(3) of IPC read with Se