The conviction under the POCSO Act was upheld amidst witness discrepancies, highlighting the importance of victim's consistent testimony; sentence was modified to five years for proportionality based on legal definitions of aggravated sexual assault.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.01.2019, passed by learned Special Judge, Kailashahar, Unakoti Tripura in case No. Special (POCSO) 30 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to suffer RI for 8(eight) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.

2. Heard Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sumit Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent.

3. The prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of a complaint lodged by the grandmother (namely Smt. Shila Chakraborty, PW1) of the victim, wherein she stated inter alia that the accused had sexually assaulted her grand-daughter by inserting his fingers to the private part of the victim, since he failed to insert his penis into the private part of her grand-daughter. Her grand-daughter was aged above 6(six) years but below 7(seven) years. As she felt pain, she was taken to hospital on the next day where she was treated for 4/5 days. PW1 made statements before WSI PW19 in the hospital itself orally, which were written by the said police officer.

4. The allegations made in the complaint were investigated after the complaint was registered by the Officer In-charge of the Police Station. During investigation, statements of the available witnesses were recorded. The victim was taken to the Magistrate for examination under Section 164(5) of CrPC. She was medically examined.

5. After conclusion of investigation, the investigating officer had submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant.

6. With the commencement of trial, charges were framed against the accused-appellant under Section 376(2)(i) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE as well as Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012, which were read over and explained to the accused. The accused-appellant pleaded his innocence.

7. To establish the charge, the prosecution had examined 19(nineteen) witnesses altogether and introduced some documents including the birth certificate of the victim girl. After conclusion of recording evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of CrPC when the allegations made against him by the prosecution witnesses were brought to his notice, but he denied those allegations as false. The accused-appellant did not adduce any evidence on his behalf.

8. Having heard the learned counsels and considering the materials available on record, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as afore-stated. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

9. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant (for short, 'accused') has submitted that there are lots of discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has strenuously argued that PW14 and PW15, though they being the tenants of the same house, were not informed about the incident which is surfaced from their depositions. It has further been submitted that PW15 stated during his evidence that the accused had no adverse report regarding his character.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that the case of the prosecution has been well proved. Learned Addl. P.P. has strongly defended the findings returned by the learned Special Judge while convicting and sentencing the accused. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. has invited my attention to the statements of PW2(victim) and PW1, grandmother(inform