The prosecution must establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, particularly in sexual abuse cases involving minors, undermine the credibility of the case.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned PP assisted by Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional PP appearing for the State-respondent.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2019 in connection with case No. Special (POCSO) 54 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge, West Tripura, Agartala had convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short POCSO) and, sentenced him to suffer R.I. for three year and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default stipulation.

3. The mother of the victim girl, PW-2 (name withheld) had lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Amtali police station, West Tripura on 20.05.2016 stating inter alia that two years back while her daughter was studying in class VII at Kendriya Vidyalaya, ONGC complex, Badharghat, Agartala, her minor daughter was subjected to sexual harassment by a teacher of the school. Her daughter did not disclose the said fact during those two years. Having noticed that her daughter was going unconscious sometimes, they visited some doctors at Agartala, and ultimately, she was referred to NIMHANS, Bangalore. It is alleged in the complaint that the doctor (PW-9) disclosed that her daughter was sexually harassed by one teacher of the school, which was disclosed to the doctor by her daughter herself. They came back to Agartala and lodged a complaint to the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalala, but, she was informed that the teacher was not in the school during that period of time as he was transferred to Chennai. Ultimately, she lodged the complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Amtali police station.

4. The matter was investigated. After completion of investigation, charge sheet had been submitted. After receipt of the charge sheet, learned Special Judge framed charge against the accused, Dipankar Roy, under Section 354(A) IPC and under Sections 11 (i)(iv)(v) of the POCSO Act, 2012, and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 12 of the said Act, 2012.

5. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. At the closure of recording evidences, the learned trial court examined the accused, Dipankar Roy, 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. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant had preferred the instant appeal before this court.

6. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the convict appellant has submitted that the entire prosecution story is baseless and outright false. The FIR has been lodged after two years of the incident which itself is enough to hold that the entire story was manufactured and concocted. Mr. Bhattacharjee, has tried to persuade this court that PW-1 and PW-6 being the parents of the victim deposed so many things in their chief-examinations which are found to be absent in their previous statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has further argued that it is unbelievable that a student of class VII, suffering from serious ment