##PAGE1## ##PAGE2##

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated

27.03.2024 and order dated 09.04.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin in Special (POCSO) Case No. 06 of 2020 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 9(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity referred to as ‘POCSO Act’) and sentencing the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and, to pay fine of ₹20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months.

The Court also in exercise of its power under Section

357A(2) of the Cr.P.C. read with Rule 9(2) of the POCSO Rules, 2020, recommended compensation of ₹1 lakh to be paid to the child-survivor by the Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority, Shillong, as stipulated in Rule 9(5) POCSO Rules, 2020, for her welfare. Interim compensation, paid if any, was to be adjusted against the final compensation.

2. The facts in brief are as under:

The appellant is the uncle of the survivor aged, 15 years.

According to the PW1 (mother of the survivor), on 23.09.2019, her daughter (survivor) informed her elder daughter on telephone i.e., that the appellant had sexually assaulted her, pursuant to which her elder daughter informed her of the same. PW1 (mother of the survivor) thereafter, informed the incident to the family members, went to the village where her daughter was residing with her cousin sister and her husband (appellant); confronted the appellant; brought back her daughter to Shillong; went to the hospital and thereafter, informed the incident to Nongstoin Police Station, pursuant to which an FIR came to be lodged. After registration of the FIR, the Police recorded the statements of the witnesses both, under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., collected evidence and thereafter, filed charge- sheet against the appellant for the alleged offence punishable under Section 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act in the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO).

3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. His defence appears to be that he is innocent.

4. The prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as six witnesses as under:

PW1 – Mother of the survivor.

PW2 – Survivor.

PW3 – Elder sister of the survivor.

PW4 – Brother-in-law of the appellant.

PW5 – Dr. Abilities Mawlieh, Medical Practitioner.

PW6 – W.P./S.I. Fredis K. Marak, Investigating officer.

5. Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(n) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, cannot be sustained for want of evidence and having regard to the inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses that has come on record. Learned Senior counsel submitted that the alleged act is also not supported by medical evidence. According to Mr. Shangreiso, learned Senior Counsel, the evidence of the witnesses does not inspire confidence nor appears to be trustworthy to sustain the conviction of the appellant. He, thus submitted that the appellant be acquitted of the offence for which he was convicted and sentenced.

6. Mr. K. Khan, learned AAG supported the impugned judgment and conviction, and submitted that no interference was warranted in the same. He submitted that the evidence of the survivor inspires confidence, is of a sterling quality and is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant. He submitted that even otherwise, the evidence of the survivor is duly corroborated by her mother (PW1) and sister (PW3) and that there is no material on record to show as to why the appellant would be falsely implicated by the witnesses, more particularly when the survivor (PW2) was sent by her mother (PW1) for pursuing her studies to the appellant’s house.

7. Having perused the evidence with the assistance of the learne