Medical evidence via ossification tests carries a two-year margin of error requiring the benefit of doubt to favor the accused. Testimony characterized by material contradictions and a lack of independent corroboration is insufficient to sustain a conviction, failing the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.

Heard Mr. N. Haque, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D.K.Bhattacharyya, learned Amicus Curiae for the informant/respondent No. 2 and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against a Judgment dated 08.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Special Sessions Case No. 05/2020 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and also fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further Simple Imprisonment for 6 months.

3. The prosecution case as per the FIR inter alia is that on 26.02.2018 while the informant went to her parental home by leaving her minor daughter aged about 16 years in the nearby house, the accused by taking advantage of absence of anyone at home, committed rape on her daughter. On the subsequent day while she came to know about the said incident, after returning to home she waited for a village bichar (meeting) but as no bichar was held, she lodged the FIR.

4. On receipt of the said FIR, the same was registered as Patherkandi P.S. case No. 81/2018 under Section 448/376 IPC r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter, Investigating Officer took up the investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused under Sections 448/376 r/w Section 6 of . On appearance of accused before this Court, charge under /376 r/w Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 got framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution to prove its case examined as many as seven witnesses including Medical Officer and Investigating Officer. After the completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein he denied all the incriminating materials against him. Defence declined to adduce evidence.

6. At this stage, it would be apposite to discuss the evidence on record.

7. As per the evidence being adduced by the informant, PW-1, being the mother of the victim girl, about 3 years back, went to her parental home to perform last rites of her mother by leaving her minor daughter with her mother in law at her home and on the subsequent day while she returned to her home, she heard from her daughter and the village people that the accused, who is her brother in law slept with her at night and did sexual intercourse with her. After the incident, her daughter informed about the same to the village people in her absence and after she returned home, her daughter and other village people informed her about the incident. After knowing about the incident, she approached the village people for bichar(meeting) but as the village people failed to hold any bichar(meeting), she lodged the FIR against the accused after about one (1) week. After lodging the FIR, the President of their village asked the accused to settle the matter by giving Rs. 10,000/- to her through the middlemen but the accused did not settle the matter.

In her cross examination, she deposed that the following people namely, Nepur Begum, Sama Begum, Sarifa Begum, Neharunnessa, Asma Begum informed her about the incident. She denied that her daughter gave statement under Section 164 Cr.PC as per the