In cases of rape, inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence, particularly regarding victim identification and age, undermine prosecution's case, necessitating acquittal.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - In a sessions trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for committing offence under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (for short, ‘POCSO’) Act along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for committing offence under Section 354D of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short, ‘IPC’) along with a fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulations in connection with Case No. Special 3 (POCSO) of 2016. The appellant has been in jail w.e.f. the date of pronouncement of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.12.2019.

2. Prosecution case, as reproduced by the learned Special Judge is as under:

“The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 25.02.2016 Smt. “D” (name withheld to protect her identity), aged 16 years, daughter of Sri Mitrijoy Tripura of Gomtibari (Mandirghat), P/S Natunbazar, (residing in the Govt. quarter of her sister’s husband), lodged a written ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge of Natunbazar Police Station alleging that on 22.02.2016, Monday, at about 8.00 p.m. she and her two classmates went out from the quarter to attend private tuition. When they reached near the Syndicate at Jatanbari, the son of Sanjib Banik namely, Sushanta Banik obstructed their way and drove away her two companions by threatening them with glass bottle. Thereafter, Sushanta took her behind the girls’ hostel by grabbing her hand and committed rape on her. Thereafter, the accused threatened her that if she disclosed the incident to anybody he would kill her. After reaching the quarter, she did not disclose the incident to anybody out of fear and shame. On the next day i.e. 23.02.2016 at about 1.00 p.m. in the afternoon she was returning from her School towards her quarter and on the way said Sushanta Banik along with 3/4 unknown persons came with a Maruti Vehicle and asked her to board the vehicle. Seeing the accused and his partners she got scared and started running towards her quarter. After she reached the quarter the miscreants left after waiting for some time. The number of the said Maruti vehicle was TR-03-F-0589 and the door of the vehicle was open. It was further alleged in the ejahar that due to the fear of the accused persons it became impossible for her to come out on the road. She further stated in the ejahar that as the 3/4 partners of Sushanta were unknown to her they could be identified if Sushanta was arrested.

On receipt of the ejahar, the O/C, Natunbazar P/S registered NTB P/S FIR No.07 of 2016 under Sections 341 /376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and endorsed the case to SI Ramendra Debbarma for investigation.

During investigation, the I/O arranged for recording of the statements of the victim and witness Smt. Jesmine Debbarma by the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The I/O visited the P.O. and prepared hand sketch map with index and seized the material witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and also arranged for medical examination of the victim and collected the medical examination reports. The I/O also collected the FSL report. On completion of investigation, the I/O submitted charge-sheet against the accused person namely, Sushanta Banik under Sections 341 /376/506 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and added Section 354D(1)(i) of IPC and Section 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and against accused persons namely, Tutan Das, Indra Bahadur Rai and Bhushan Das under Section 354D(1)(i) of IPC.

On receipt of the charge sheet cognizance of offence was taken on 14.06.2016 under the aforesaid Sections of law and the accused persons were s