The court upheld the conviction under the POCSO Act based on strong testimonial and medical evidence, affirming that negative DNA results do not undermine the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

Pranjal Das, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. R. Patgiri and Mr. B.G. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Dr. P. Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for respondent No.2.

2. The three criminal appeals herein are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. All the three criminal appeals have been preferred by the respective convict appellants against the judgment dated 05-06-2024 and order of sentence dated 07-06-2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup, Amingaon in Special (POCSO) Case No. 25/2017, whereby all the three convict appellants were convicted under section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default undergo R.I. for 2(two) months.

3. Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 2024 has been preferred by convict appellants namely, Nripen Rabha; Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2024 has been preferred by convict appellant namely, Jiban Das and Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2024 has been preferred by convict appellant namely, Sone Rabha @ Soneswar Rabha.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 31.01.2013 at about 10 PM when the 14 year old daughter of the informant was alone in her house the convict appellants entered into her house and dragged her out and committed rape upon her. With these allegations an FIR was lodged at the police station on 31-01-2013, whereupon Chhaygaon P.S. Case No. 26 of 2013 was registered under section 376(g)/307/379 IPC and investigation started. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the convict appellants under section 376D/307 r/w section 4 of the POCSO Act.

5. Subsequently after completion of usual formalities the learned trial court framed charges against the three convict appellants under section 6 of the POCSO Act r/w section 307 of IPC . The charge being denied by the accused persons. The trial commenced during which the prosecution examined 9(Nine) witnesses including the victim MO and IO. Thereafter, the accused persons were examined under section 313 CrPC.

6. The defence adduced the evidence of 3(three) witnesses. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced all the three accused persons as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the same the three convict appellants, as mentioned above, have preferred the instant three appeals which as mentioned above are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

7. The learned counsel for the convict appellants has taken the Court through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses adduced during the trial. It is submitted that though it is mentioned in the FIR that the informant, who is the father of the victim had found the victim unconscious in the field but in the testimony of the victim as well as the testimony of the said informant, it is stated that the victim had come back home after the incident. It is submitted that this is an important contradiction between the FIR and the testimony of PW-1.

8. It is also submitted that the medical report indicates that there were no injuries found on the private parts of the victim and that the DNA particulars also do not match as per the testimony of the forensic witness. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants has taken the court through the testimony of the medical witness PW-6 and submitted that