A conviction for sexual assault requires consistent, corroborated testimony from the victim and relevant evidence, especially when minors are involved, highlighting the importance of protecting vulnerable individuals under applicable laws.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

PRANJAL DAS, J.

1. Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Mr. M. Boje, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for respondent No.2.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 29-04-2014, in the evening, an FIR was lodged by one Smti Reena Dutta against the accused Arbindo Mandal with the allegations that the accused has been sexually assaulting his 14-year-old daughter since the last one year. And whenever she used to refuse his said advances, the accused used to also physically assault her. And out of fear, the victim was unable to disclose the matter earlier. On the basis of the FIR, Pasighat PS No. 29 of 2014 was registered under Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act 2012. Upon completion of investigation, the IO laid charge sheet against the accused under the aforesaid sections.

3. After taking cognizance and necessary formalities, charges were framed against the accused by the learned Trial Court under Section 6 of the POCSO Act 2012 read with Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC. The charge being denied by the accused led to commencement of the trial. During the trial, the prosecution side examined 12 witnesses including the informant victim, IO and medical officer. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, two witnesses were adduced from the side of the accused and they were cross-examined by the prosecution.

4. After completion of the trial, the Learned Trial Court by judgment dated 16-12-2021 convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. For his conviction under the aforesaid penal provisions, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months.

5. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convict appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this court.

6. The respondent No.1/State is represented by the Learned Public Prosecutor. Upon being noticed, the respondent No.2/informant is represented by Mr. M. Boje, learned Amicus Curiae.

7. The original case record was called for and received. A paper book has also been prepared and placed before the court for convenience of adjudication of the matter.

8. The Learned Counsel for the convict appellant submits that the prosecution case suffers from several infirmities and was not convincingly proved before the learned trial court. That, there are contradictions in the testimony of PW-2 and with regard to the place of occurrence as well there are contradictions. It is submitted that some important witnesses were not examined by the prosecution.

9. It is submitted that the prosecution evidence gave rise to two views. Therefore, benefit should have been given to the convict appellant. It is submitted that the victim girl herself in her statement and deposition stated about dependency of her siblings on her father. It is submitted that the victim has improved her statement in her testimony.

10. The learned counsel for the convict appellant submits that the accused was falsely implicated by the victim girl at the behest of her boyfriend and that the testimony of the victim girl is not wholly reliable.

11. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the testimony of the victim girl is consistent and has been also corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. The family members have also corroborated her