The court upheld the conviction based on the victim's credible testimony, emphasizing that corroboration is not always necessary if the victim's account is trustworthy.

JUDGMENT

(Made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice)

“Sir Thomas Alva Edison, a great American Inventor and Businessman invented Electric Bulb and other electronic devices so as to bring brightness to the life of people, whereas the accused bearing his name partly, namely, Edison, brought darkness to the life of the victim girl and made a scar in her heart through forcible shock.”

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.05.2022 and the order of sentence dated 03.06.2022, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong in Special (POCSO) Case No.4/2015 and the accused/Appellant herein was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence under Sections 3(a)/5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short “the POCSO Act, 2012”) and under Sections 321 / 323 / 340 / 342 / 361 / 363 / 366A / 375(a) IPC 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. A complaint was given by the sister (P.W.1) of the victim girl (P.W.2) on 20.06.2013 before the Officer-in-Charge, Rynjah Police Station, stating that her sister was raped by the accused on 18.06.2013 and on receipt of the FIR, the Officer-in-Charge, Rynjah Police Station registered a case vide Rynjah PS Case No.47 (06) 13 under Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and under Sections 376/362/363/506/324 IPC and entrusted the case to one WPSI B. Karakor for further investigation.

3. After investigation, a Charge Sheet No.28 of 2014 dated 28.03.2014 under Sections 363 /342/324/506 IPC was laid before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and the case was committed to the Special Judge (POCSO) for trial, who framed the charges against the accused under Sections 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Sections 363 /342/324/506 IPC . The prosecution, in order to substantiate the commission of the offences against the accused, examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents and one Exhibit-C1-Certificate of the victim. Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was obtained from the victim girl (P.W.2). The accused was questioned under Section 313 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 offences under Sections 3(a)/5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and under Sections 321 /323/340/342/361/363/366A/375(a) IPC and convicted him as stated supra.

4. Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there was a contradiction in the statements of P.W.1 (sister of the victim girl) between her 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. and even though the Doctor (P.W.3) opined that the hymen of the victim girl (P.W.2) was not intact, the finding was given that there was an Old Tear at 3’o clock and 6’o clock. He further submitted that as per the Doctor’s evidence, the age of the victim girl was assessed as 17 years and on perusal of the School Leaving Certificate, the age of the victi