NIKERSON NONGBAK Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises out of a judgment and order of conviction dated May 11, 2016 where the appellant has been found guilty under Ss. 3 and 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00; in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months in lieu of the fine.

(2.) The incident occurred on August 25, 2014. There is some doubt as to the age of the victim. The complainant, who is the father of the victim, indicated in the complaint that his victim daughter was nine years old, but in course of his deposition in the Court claimed that the victim was about twelve years old at the time of the incident. The medical practitioner, who examined the victim at the government facility after the complaint, indicated the age of the victim to be around 12 to 15 years, though the medical report referred to the age of the victim to be nine years, presumably reflecting as to may have been claimed at the time. There was no attempt to ascertain the age of the victim in course of the trial.

(3.) The victim was also stated to be mentally unstable. There are some anomalies that the appellant seeks to point out, particularly the testimony of the victim's mother (PW 3) when she claimed that the victim narrated the incident to her but she also asserted that the victim was unable to speak. However, the mother's assertion that the victim was unable to speak has to be understood in the appropriate perspective and may be seen to imply that the victim could not speak properly rather than that the victim could not speak at all; particularly, since the victim was examined by the Court and she responded to the court's question to answer that her modesty had been outraged by the appellant. The Court also recorded that the victim was unable to perceive other questions put to her and did not seem to be normal. Again, no attempt was made in course of the trial to establish the mental condition of the victim, though even the government medical practitioner observed that the victim was not normal but did not express any conclusive opinion in such regard as he perceived that it was the duty of a specialist psychiatrist so to do.