The court upheld the conviction of both appellants for gang rape, affirming that witness credibility and minor inconsistencies do not undermine the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Surana, J.

Heard Ms. M. Barman, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP for the State and senior counsel, assisted by Ms. J. Saikia, learned counsel.

2. On receipt of petition of appeal of the appellants through the Superintendent of Central Jail, Jorhat, both these appeals are one within the provision of section 383 Cr.P.C. read with section 374 Cr.P.C.

3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and sentence dated 31.08.2021, passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Jorhat in Special Case No. 93/2017. By the said judgment and sentence, the appellants were convicted for commission of offence under section 376D IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 20 (twenty) years each and fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) each with default stipulations. It was further ordered that the fine amount, if realized, shall be paid the victim for her medical expenses and rehabilitation.

4. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.10.2017, the victim (hereinafter referred to as ‘X’) had gone to watch movie in the tea estate. The appellants, namely, Monu Tanti (also spelt as Munu Tanti), appellant in Crl.A.(J) 44/2021; and Dip Kalindi (also spelt as Deep Kalindi) @ Dipok, appellant in Crl.A.(J) 45/2021, had raped the victim in a bamboo grove at Hatkhola Line. The friend of the victim, namely, Smti. Puja Kalindi, had informed the incident to one Golap Kalindi and the incident came to light and thereafter, the victim was taken to the Jorhat Medical College and Hospital for examination and police was requested to take action against the accused persons and accordingly, the FIR was lodged by the father of the victim (name masked), who had explained in the FIR that as both the accused persons had prevented them from coming to police station by giving threats to his daughter, the lodging of the FIR got delayed. Accordingly, Pulibor P.S. Case No.337/17 was registered under section 376 IPC read with sections 6/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act, 2012” for brevity).

5. In course of investigation, the I/O, having found materials against the appellants, submitted Charge-Sheet No. 179/17 dated 30.11.2017.

6. It may be mentioned that in the meantime, in course of investigation, the I/O had got the statement of the victim as well as the statement of Smti. Puja Kalindi recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jorhat on 06.11.2017.

7. In course of trial, after framing of charges on 29.01.2018, the prosecution evidence commenced. The prosecution had examined 10 (ten) witnesses, namely, (1) X (victim) as PW-1; (2) Shri Roghu Kalindi as PW-2; (3) Shri Krishna Kalindi as PW-3; (4) Smt. Puja Kalindi as PW-4; (5) Shri Golap Kalindi as PW-5; (6) Smt. Sarumai Kalindi as PW-6; (7) Smt. Sima Kalindi as PW- 7; (8) Dr. Ritu Saikia as PW-8; (9) Md. Shams Uddin as PW-9; and (10) Smt. Niva Rani Doley as PW-10. Thereafter, the accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. During examination of witnesses, the following documents were exhibited, viz. (1) FIR as Ext.1; (2) Medical Report as Ext.2; (3) Sketch Map as Ext.3; (4) Charge Sheet as Ext.4; (5) Statement of victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. as Ext.5; (6) Statement of witness under section 164 Cr.P.C. as Ext.6; (7) Order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as Ext.7; and (8) Order relating to reflection of time as Ext.8.

8. It would be suffice to mention that the learned Special Judge, POCSO, after appreciating the evidence on record and the statement of the accused recorded under