The prosecution must prove accusations beyond a reasonable doubt, and if doubts persist, they favor the accused, with appropriate consideration for the offender's age and health in sentencing.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. T. D. Majumdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Biplab Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Additional P.P. appearing for the State-respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.02.2021, passed by the learned Special Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in case No. Special (POCSO) 35 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted under Section 451 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 1(one) year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation and, further convicted the appellant under Section 354 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and in the alternative under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3(three) years with default stipulation.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that, the mother (PW-1) of the victim girl (PW-2) lodged a complaint with the Officer-In-charge of Jirania Police Station stating inter-alia that on 27.06.2017 at about 8 am, the appellant entered into the house of the complainant when her daughter was alone and forcibly grasped her minor daughter. At that time, she slapped the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant ran away.

4. The said complaint lodged on 27.6.2011 was treated as FIR. Investigation was carried out. Statements of the victim under Section 164(5) of the Cr.P.C. were recorded by the Magistrate. The I.O. arranged for medical examination of the victim girl, and thereafter, recorded the statements of the available witnesses, and being found a prima-facie case, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant.

5. Having receipt of the charge-sheet, the learned Special Judge had taken cognizance of the offence. At the commencement of trial, charge was framed under Section 451 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and further under Section 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

6. On closure of recording evidences, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution witnesses and pleaded to be innocent. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, and on consideration of the evidences and materials on record, learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as afore-stated.

7. Feeling aggrieved, and dissatisfied with the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the convict-appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this court.

8. Mr. T. D. Majumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has tried to project a false case against the appellant. From the evidences of the prosecution witnesses it comes to light that there was serious enmity between the complainant and the appellant regarding the issue to demarcate the boundary of their respective houses. Mr. Datta Majumdar, learned senior counsel has further questioned that, how a person can enter into the house in presence of mother of the victim and sexually harass her. Learned senior counsel further submits that, during the course of evidence before the learned trial court, PW-1 deposed that at that point of time her victim daughter (PW-2) was alone in the house and she went to the paddy field to supply tiffin to her husband, but, in the FIR, this statement is wholly absent. Learned senior counsel has questioned if the statement of PW-1 is believed that she went to the paddy field at that time, and taking the advantage that the victim was alone, the appellant entered into the house, then, how it would be possible for the complainant (PW-1) to slap the appellant. As such, accord