The court determined that evidence did not support a conviction under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, modifying it to Section 12, reflecting inconsistencies in witness testimonies.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant also heard Mr. S Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State of Tripura.

2. The appellant, by means of filing the present appeal has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.01.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Tripura, Agartala, in connection with case No. Special (POCSO) 60 of 2016 wherein the appellant has been convicted under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5(Five) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default stipulation and further convicted under Section 451 IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 5000 with default stipulation.

3. Brief facts are that, the mother of the victim girl (PW1) had lodged a complaint with officer in-charge of Amtali police station on 06.09.2016 at about 18:26 hours stating inter alia that when she and her husband were outside their home, then, at around 2.00-2:30 p.m. the appellant had entered into the room where her girl was staying. After entering into the room, the accused locked the door and embraced her daughter and touched her private parts.

4. On receipt of such information, the I.O. being endorsed by the officer- in-charge of the police station started investigation, and during the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesses. The investigating Officer had also arranged for examination of the victim-girl under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. On such production, the concerned Magistrate recorded the statement of the victim girl. On completion of investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet being no. 100 of 2016 dated 20.11.2016 under Sections 448 /342/354 IPC and section 8 of the POCSO Act against the accused. On receipt of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by the Special court. At the commencement of trial, charge was framed against the accused under Sections 451 /354 IPC and 10 of the POCSO Act, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution to substantiate the charges adduced as many as 15 witnesses and introduced some documents which were exhibited by the learned trial court. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to which he denied all the allegations and wanted to adduce evidence on his behalf. Accordingly, to controvert the evidence let in by the prosecution witnesses, the accused had adduced two witnesses including himself as DW-1 and DW-2. After completion of recording of evidences and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated here-in-above. Hence, this appeal before this court.

6. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (here-in-after referred to as the 'accused') has submitted that there are substantial contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. Mr. Deb, has laid enough emphasis on the evidences let in by the defence witnesses i.e. DW1 and DW 2. DW-1, is the accused, and DW-2, is a witness who appeared before the trial court on being instructed by his superior officer. DW-2 had produced the attendance register maintained for that date of offence. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has tried to persuade this court that the attendance register aptly proves that the accused was not present at the scene of occurrence on that date and time. Mr. Deb, has pointed out that PW-4 has deposed that she came to know about the sexual assault upon the daughter of the compla