The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance and admissibility of DNA profiling in establishing paternity and proving the accused's guilt in sexual offence cases involving minors.

JUDGMENT :

BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J.

1. The criminal investigation was set in motion when PW-1, ASHA member, lodged the First Information Report (for short "the FIR") (Exhibit-1) at the Mangan Police Station on 20.09.2016 alleging that the victim (PW-3) who was a 16 year old child, had been “reportedly raped” by one Deepak Subba @ Dupli Gogo (for short "Deepak Subba") “since 3 (three) to 4 months ago” and she was found pregnant. In the said FIR (Exhibit-1), the victim was referred to as an abnormal child.

2. On 01.08.2017, a charge-sheet was filed against Deepak Subba and the appellant. It was alleged that investigation revealed that the appellant, in fact, was the first one to rape the victim.

3. On 21.02.2018, eleven charges were framed against the appellant under section 5(l), 5(k) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act") (for three occasions), sections 376(2)(n) and 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") (for three occasions), 376(2)(j) IPC (for three occasions), section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act and section 354B IPC.

4. 17 witnesses including the Investigating Officer (PW-17) were examined by the prosecution. The appellant was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") on 06.06.2018. The appellant stated that he was falsely implicated in the case and he had never sexually assaulted the victim. The appellant blamed the victim's mother (PW-4) for the false implication. The appellant stated that the victim's mother (PW-4) disliked him as she reportedly lost Rs.4000/- (Rupees four thousand) in his house during one of her visits and blamed him for it.

5. The learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under sections 5(k)/6, 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act, section 376(2)(l), section 376(2)(j) and section 354B of the IPC (all on single counts) and acquitted him of other charges vide impugned Judgment dated 23.06.2018. The learned Special Judge sentenced the appellant in the following manner:-

(a) Rigorous imprisonment of 20 years and fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under section 376(2)(l) IPC and section 5(k)/6 of the POCSO Act. In default to pay fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.

(b) Rigorous imprisonment of 20 years and fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under section 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act. In default to pay fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.

(c) Rigorous imprisonment of 20 years and fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under section 376(2)(j) IPC. In default to pay fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.

(d) Simple imprisonment of 5 years and fine of Rs.40,000/- for the offence under section 354B IPC. In default to pay fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.

(e) The period of imprisonment was directed to run concurrently.

6. The appellant is aggrieved by the conviction and the sentences.

7. Heard Mr. Jorgay Namka, learned counsel for the appellant. It is submitted that except the DNA profiling report (Exhibit-12) there is no clinching evidence against him. In so far as the DNA profiling report is concerned, he submits the evidence as to how the blood sample was collected by the Investigating Officer is wanting. It is argued that neither the FIR (Exhibit-1) nor the deposition of the victim blamed the appellant for the crime he has been convicted for and in fact there is no FIR against the appellant. The FIR (Exhibit-1), in fact, blamed one Deepak Subba. The victim had also blamed Deepak Subba in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit-14) and no allegation was made against the appellant. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in Labhuji Amratji Thakor and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, AIR 2019 SC 734 and the judgment of this Court in Taraman Kami vs. State of Sikkim, SLR (2017) Sikkim 781. He pointed out that the FIR (Exhibit-1) was registered against another accused and not the appellant. He also pointed out that the appell