Point of Law : Offenders – Applicability of provisions - Sub-section 10 of Section 360 of CrPC specifically contemplates that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act,1958 or the Children Act,1960 or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders are not affected by the Code. Therefore, the provisions of the Code were not excluded by the 1958 Act. Both the provisions, Section 360 of the Code as well as 1958 Act, are applicable in respect of the offenders before the court.

JUDGMENT :

This is an appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.08.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Case No. Special (POCSO) 12 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for commission of offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for commission of offence under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) 2012. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Briefly stated, one Shri Rajib Shyam, PW-1, the father of the victim lodged a complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Dharmanagar Women Police Station, North Tripura stating inter alia that on 25-10-2017 last at around 10:30 am, while his daughter was going to school, the accused Ajoy Bahadur Sonar took her on a private vehicle from near Radharaman Ashram (Padmapur). His minor daughter was a student of Class-VIII. He mentioned the registration No. of the vehicle as TR02-F-0716. Panchayat Pradhan of Dewanpasha and Radhapur along with other people rescued his daughter after they got that news. This was a pre-planned kidnapping by the accused Ajoy Bahadur Sonar who molested his daughter in the vehicle. Thinking about the future of the girl, filing of the ejahar got delayed.

3. On the basis of said complaint, the O.C. of the Police Station registered a case under Section 363 of IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act against the accused. Investigation was carried out. During investigation, the investigating officer examined available witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 of CrPC. The statement of the victim girl under Section 161 of CrPC has also been recorded. Thereafter, being prima facie satisfied, the IO submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Section 363 of IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

4. The learned trial court on receipt of the charge sheet, framed charges against the accused under Section 363 of IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

5. In course of trial, as many as 9 witnesses were examined and cross-examined. The school certificate [Exbt.8] was seized for determination of the age of the victim girl. Also the birth certificate [MO-1] of the victim girl was seized.

6. At the closure of recording prosecution evidence, the learned Special Judge examined the accused under Section 313 of CrPC, when he was noticed about all the incriminating evidences as surfaced against him to which he denied all the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution witnesses and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

7. Learned Special Judge after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties recorded the findings of guilt against the accused-appellant and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforestated.

8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convict-appellant has preferred the instant appeal challenging his conviction and sentence as stated here-in-above.

9. I have heard Mr. A. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent.

10. Mr. Nandi, learned counsel for the appellant has tried to persuade this court that there are material contradictions and omissions emanated from the prosecution witnesses.

On the other hand, Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. for the State-respondent submits that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges framed against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

11. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. Also perused the statements of the prosecution witnesses and other mate