The court affirmed that intoxication negates consent in cases of sexual assault against minors, emphasizing the importance of corroborative evidence in establishing the accused's guilt.

JUDGMENT :

S. VAIDYANATHAN, CJ.

1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.10.2022 and the order of sentence dated 31.10.2022, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong in Special (POCSO) Case No.24/2015 and the accused/Appellant herein was convicted by the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 3 (a)/4of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Sections 3 28/354B/375(a) falling under Sections 3 75(sixthly)/376(2)(j)(n)/441/442/450 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and was sentenced as under:

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The Trial Court also recommended for consideration of restoration and rehabilitation of the survivor by the State Legal Services Authority under Section 357A Cr.P.C.

Brief Prosecution Case:

2. An FIR was given by the parents of the victim girl on 17.04.2015 before the officer-in-charge, Madanryting Police Station stating that her daughter was raped on 14.03.2015. On receipt of the FIR, the officer-in-charge, Madanryting Police Station registered a case vide Madanryting PS Case No.47 (4) 15 under Sections 3 ,4,7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Sections 506 IPC and endorsed to one WPSI P. Wahlang for carrying out the investigation.

3. After investigation, a charge sheet No.74 of 2015 dated 18.09.2015 under Section 3 (a)/4 of the POCSO Act of 2012 was laid to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Special Judge (POCSO), who framed the charges against the accused under Section 3 (a)/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the commission of the offence against the accused, has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 11 exhibits and 8 material Exhibits. Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was obtained from the victim girl (P.W.1). The accused was questioned under Section 3 13 Cr.P.C. and he denied the charges levelled against him. The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence let in by the prosecution, found the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 3 under Section 3 (a)/4of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Sections 3 28/354B/375(a) falling under Sections 3 75(sixthly)/376(2)(j)(n)/441/442/450 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and convicted him as stated supra.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the victim girl and the appellant were friends and were in the habit of exchanging messages to each other through mobile. When the appellant proposed his love to the victim, she accepted his proposal, pursuant to which, they roamed around in the society as lovers. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the prosecution failed to establish as to how the ingredients of the offences under Section 3 (a)/4 of the POCSO Act of 2012 and under Sections 3 28/354B/375(a) falling under Sections 3 75(sixthly) / 376(2)(j)(n) IPC and under Section 25 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 would get attracted against the appellant and as such, there were several discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses before the Trial Court. Learned counsel also submitted that there is a delay in filing the FIR and the Trial Court failed to address the same and the complaint culminated into FIR after the parents of the victim girl discover some