The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies led the court to find in favor of the accused.

JUDGMENT :
T. Amarnath Goud, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

[2] This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.02.2022 passed by the Ld. Special Judge, (POCSO), West Tripura, Agartala, in connection with Case No. Special (POCSO) 14 of 2019 convicting the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment (R.I) for a period of 20(Twenty) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 (Rupees Two Thousand) only in default to suffer R.I for 1 (one) months for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act.

[3] Briefly, the factual matrix as far the version of the prosecution is that, on 19-10-2018, at about 1900 hours, the FIR named accused person Sri Santosh Satnami @ Hriday Santal called the minor victim girl (name withheld) over a phone and asked her to reach behind the Shyamali Guest House at the Durgabari Tea Garden. When the victim reached there, the said accused forcibly committed rape upon her due to which the victim got terrified and she concealed the matter of rape on that day from her family members. On 21-10-2018, morning at about 1000 hours, the victim informed the matter to her mother, who upon hearing the same lodged a written complaint in this regard.

[4] Based, on the written complaint of the informant (mother of the victim), a case was lodged at Airport PS and accordingly, the investigation started. During investigation the IO visited the PO and prepared hand sketch map of the PO with separate index. She examined all available witnesses and recorded their statements U/S 161 of CrPC and later on she was also send the victim to the learned court for recording of her statement U/S 164(5) of CrPC. Further, in the course of investigation, the accused person was arrested on 25-10-2018 and forwarded to the learned court on 26-10-2018. Subsequently, medical examination of the victim and potency test of the accused person was conducted. Thereafter, exhibits seized from the hospital during medical examination of the victim as well as accused person was sent to SFSL for examination and thereupon collected SFSL examination report. On completion of investigation, IO filed charge sheet vide Airport PS C/S No.07/2019, dated 11-02-2019, under Sections-376(2)(i) of the IPC read with Section-4 of the POCSO Act against the accused person namely Santosh Satnami @ Hriday Santal of for facing trial in the open Court of law for the fair ends of justice.

[5] During trial, upon hearing submissions of parties and taking into consideration the record and documents submitted therewith, my predecessor-inoffice framed charge under Sections-376(2)(i) of the IPC read with Section-4 of the POCSO Act against the accused person namely Santosh Satnami @ Hriday Santal, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, the existing charge was altered after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 19-11-2021, in light of the latest amendment brought U/S 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the charge was altered as Section 376(2)(j) of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the accused namely Santosh Satnami @Hriday Santal to which he further pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

[6] Thereafter, the learned court below by the order dated 17.02.2022 passed the impugned order which is reproduced herein under:

Order :

21. In the result, accused namely Sri Santosh Satnami @ Hriday Santal is convicted on the charges framed under sections 376(2)(j) of the IPC and under Section -4(2) of the POCSO A