Corroborative evidence from the victim and witnesses established the offense under relevant sexual assault provisions; inconsistencies in witness testimonies pertained to minor details, not affecting overall narrative.

JUDGMENT

Heard Ms. M. Roy, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.

Ghosh, learned Additional PP appearing for the State-respondent.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.06.2019 in connection with case No. Special (POCSO) 08 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Dharmanagar, North Tripura had convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 354 (A)(1)(i) of the IPC and under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short POCSO) and, sentenced him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation for commission of offence under section 354 (A)(1)(i) of the IPC and further sentenced him to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation for commission of offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.3. The facts, in brief, are that, the father of the victim girl lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Dharmanagar PS stating inter alia that on the fateful day his victim daughter went to the house of her friend, namely, 'Sumi' and when they entered into the room of 'Sumi', one Sajan (the accused appellant herein) entering into the room locked the door and sexually harassed the victim by touching her breast and pulling her frock. Sumi tried to resist and warned the accused not to do the said act. At the same time, the victim girl raised alarm. Being frightened, the accused had fled away from the spot. Thereafter, both Sumi and the victim girl proceeded towards their house and just coming out of the house of Sumi, they met Smt. Sukla Rani Goswar (PW-4) and narrated the incident to her. Thereafter, the victim girl alongwith Sumi after coming to their house narrated the incident to her parents and, thereafter, the father of the victim i.e. the complainant (PW-3) Kiran Manikya Sharma lodged the complaint.

4. The Officer-in-Charge of the police station on the basis of the aforesaid complaint registered Dharmanagar Women PS case No. 2016 WDN 026 under Sections 354 B of the IPC and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. In course of investigation, the I.O. visited the place of occurrence, prepared the handsketch map, recorded statement of the available witnesses and arranged for recording of the statement of the victim girl under Section 164(5) of C.P.C. The I.O. also seized the birth certificate of the victim by preparing seizure list. Having found a prima facie case, as was established, the I.O. submitted charge sheet under Section 354 B of IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act against the accused-appellant.

5. On receipt of the charge-sheet, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 354 B of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act was taken. Upon hearing the parties, charge was framed by the learned trial court, to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.6. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses including the victim girl. At the closure of recording evidences, the learned trial court examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he was noticed about the incriminating statements and materials, as surfaced by the prosecution witnesses against him in course of trial to which the accused denied all the allegations levelled against him. However, he denied to adduce any evidence on his behalf. Thereafter, having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on consideration of the evidences on record, the learned trial court returned the finding of guilt against the accused person and convicted and sentenced him, as aforestated.

7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant had preferred the instant appeal before this court challenging the legality and propriety of his conviction and sentence.

8. Ms. Roy, learned counsel has submitted that there ar