Conviction under POCSO Act confirmed based on credible testimonies and medical evidence, demonstrating guilt despite challenges to the prosecution's credibility.

JUDGMENT

Amarnath Goud, J. - Heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional PP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.09.2021 passed in connection with case No. Special 12 of 2019 (POCSO) by the learned Special Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation and, further sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence committed under Section 448 of the IPC.

3. On 25.04.2019, as per the case of the prosecution, the daughter (name withheld) of the informant, aged 8 years, when was alone in her house, she was being raped by the appellant and was also threatened by the appellant not to disclose the incident to anybody. At the relevant point of time, the complainant was in her work in the field. She got the information over phone from her son that the appellant had embraced her daughter and as soon as he came to the hut, the appellant had fled away through window. After coming home, when she asked her daughter, she also told that the appellant had embraced her and committed rape upon her. Therefore, a complaint came to be lodged with the police.

4. The said complaint was registered as Birganj PS case no. 28 of 2019 under Sections 506 of the IPC and section 4 of the POCSO Act. The matter was investigated by the investigating officer, and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 4 48 /376(2)(i)/506 of the IPC and section 4 of the POCSO Act. At the commencement of trial, the learned Special Judge had framed charge against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, the prosecution to establish the charge had adduced 22 witnesses. After closure of recording evidences, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the allegations leveled against him by the prosecution witnesses. After hearing arguments and on examining the evidences and materials on record, the learned Special Judge had convicted and sentenced the appellant for committing offence, as aforestated. Hence, this appeal before this court.

6. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges leveled against the convict-appellant. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel has urged that the FIR was lodged belatedly and that, itself, creates a doubt in the story put forth by the prosecution. He urged that the version given by the prosecutrix is not at all believable and has no credibility. Moreover, there is no independent witness in respect of any of the details that she had stated. It is, further, his case that the prosecution case does not get any support from the medical evidence, and therefore also, a serious error is committed by the trial Court in believing the story of the prosecution. He has urged that only on the basis of conjuncture and surmise, the judgment and order of conviction has been passed.

7. On the other hand, Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional PP has supported the findings of the learned trial court while convicting the accused. Mr. Datta, has also submitted that if the evidences of prosecution witnesses are read conjointly it could safely be presumed that the convict appellant had committed the alleged offence. Hence, learned PP has submitted to maintain the findings of the