Consent of a minor is immaterial in sexual assault cases; the accused's marriage does not justify the offense, affirming protective laws against child exploitation.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This instant appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE for quashing/setting aside of the judgment and order of conviction dated 01.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), North Tripura, Dharmangar, Tripura in Case No. Special (POCSO) 02 of 2020.

2. The fact of the case, in brief, is that, one Smt. Shelly Rani Das, W/o Sri Sajal Kanta Das of West Padmadil, Ward No.05, P.S. Panisagar, North Tripura, District-Tripura, lodged an ejahar on 18.12.2019 with the officer-in-charge of Panisagar Police Station. In the said ejahar, it was alleged that on 05.11.2019 at about 6.30 to 7.00 am, her minor daughter, name withheld, a student of Class-VIII, aged about 14(fourteen) years went out from the home to attend her private tuition at Nutun Bazar, Padmabil, but, she did not return home. At about 10.00 am, she searched in all possible places but ultimately she could not be traced. Thereafter, the victim made a call on a mobile phone and informed her mother that the accused-appellant herein and his another associate gagged her mouth and forcibly kidnapped her by a motorbike. She was taken away to the house of the appellant herein. Hearing the information, the complainant and her husband went to the house of Jowel Nath, the appellant herein, and consulted the mother of the appellant, Smt. Jayanti Nath. She refused to hand over the victim to her parents and assured them that there would be an amicable settlement of the matter. In the meantime, the accused-appellant kept the victim confined in his house and repeatedly had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, they declined to settle the matter amicably for which delay was caused in lodging the ejahar.

3. O.C. Panisagar P.S. accordingly registered a Panisagar Police Case No.2019 PNS 071 for the commission of offenses punishable under Section 366A, 376(3) of IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the appellant herein. S.I. Gurupada Debnath was entrusted with the charge of the investigation. In the course of the investigation, the victim was produced before the medical officer for her medical examination. Accordingly, medical examination was done, the report was collected and placed on record. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 19.12.2019. The appellant was also arrested and was medically examined and report of the said examination was collected and also placed on record.

4. After completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet against the appellant herein for the commission of offenses punishable under Section 366A/376(3) of IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act 2012. Cognizance was taken on the charge sheet and Special Judge (POCSO) Court framed the charge under Section 366A/376(3) of IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act 2012, to which the appellant-petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the Trial, the prosecution examined 11(eleven) witnesses which are as follows:-

P.W.-1, Smt. Shelly Rani Das

P.W.-2, The victim herself (name withheld)

P.W.-3, Sri Sajal Kanti Das

P.W.-4, Sri Sanjit Debbarma

P.W.-5, Sri Smt. Mamata Goala.

P.W.-6, Dr. Rahul Chandra Saha.

P.W.-7, Dr. Kallol Biswas.

P.W.-8, Dr. Smt. Sudipa Biswas.

P.W.-9, Sri Bir Kishore Tripura.

P.W.-10, Sri Gurupada Debnath.

P.W.-11, Sri Amulya Kumar Das.

6. Out of the above 11(eleven) witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.-1 is the mother of the victim girl and she filed ejahar to the Panisagar Police Station, P.W.-2 is the victim herself, P.W.-3 is the father of the victim, P.W.- 4 & 5 are official witnesses, P.W.-6, 7 & 8 are medical expe