JUDGMENT

(MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J)

1. Heard Mr. Y. S. Mannan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mr. P. K. Munir, learned counsel appearing for the informant/respondent No.

2.

2. This appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the appellant, Nakul Kalita, impugning the judgment and order dated 16.12.2020 passed in the Special Sessions (POCSO) Case No. 51/2018, by the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 6 months.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of this appeal, in brief, are as follows.

(i) That on 20.11.2017, the father of the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Hajo Police Station, inter alia, alleging that in the month of Bohag (corresponding to the English calendar months of April-

May), the appellant came to the house of the first informant telling that he would not be present in his house so he requested and took the daughter of the first informant along with him to his house so that she may stay with his wife. It is also stated in the FIR that about 15 days prior to lodging of the FIR, the daughter of the first informant was taken for a test regarding jaundice. During jaundice test, the doctor informed the first informant that his daughter is carrying seven months of pregnancy. It is further stated in the FIR that when the first informant enquired from his daughter, he came to know that when his daughter was taken to the house of the present appellant in the month of Bohag (April-May), he gave some tablet to her to consume and after she became unconscious, he committed sexual intercourse with her as a result of which she became pregnant at a tender age of 16 years only.

(ii) On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of Hajo Police Station registered the Hajo P.S. Case No. 878/2017 under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and entrusted WSI, B. Das to conduct the investigation. After taking up the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the victim girl, informant and other witnesses. She also forwarded the victim to Guwahati Medical College & Hospital. Thereafter, she visited the place of occurrence and prepared a sketch map of the place of occurrence. On 23.11.2017, the appellant was arrested. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid against the appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

(iii) Initially, on 27/09/2018, the charge under section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was framed against the appellant. However, on 11.06.2019, after considering the materials available on record and after hearing both the sides, the Court of learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon altered the charge and reframed it under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the appellant. When the said charge was read over and explained to him, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(iv) The appellant faced the trial remaining on bail. To bring home the charge against the appellant, the prosecution side examined as many as nine prosecution witnesses. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, during which he denied the truthfulness of the testimony of prosecution witnesses and pleaded his innocence. He also adduced the evidence of two defence witnesses in his defence. However, ultimately, by the judgment and order which has been impugned in this appeal, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the manner as already described in paragraph No. 2 hereinbefore.

4. Before considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides, let us go through