CHARMING RUPON Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted under Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1.00 lakh. In default of payment of the fine, the appellant has to suffer further simple imprisonment for five months.

(2.) The principal ground urged by the appellant is that the appellant was not sufficiently identified as the offender or even being present at the place of occurrence at the time that the offence is said to have been committed. In particular, the appellant refers to the statement of the victim to the effect that it was the victim's mother who named the appellant to the victim; the fact that the relationship that the victim described as between the victim and the appellant was completely incorrect; and, most importantly, the retraction by PW 2 in course of her re-examination after having initially said that shortly after the incident occurred, PW 2 had seen the victim and the appellant having kwai.

(3.) The other major ground raised by the appellant is that there was a perfect alibi set up by the appellant and three other witnesses along with the appellant testified to the fact that for most of the day on May 28, 2015, particularly during the afternoon and evening of that day, the appellant was at Saipung village, which is at least a three hours' drive from the appellant's village of Shnongrim in the East Jaintia Hills District. Shnongrim and Lum Bangla Nongkhlieh, where the victim resides, are neighbouring villages. According to the appellant, little or no reason has been indicated in the impugned judgment of December 7, 2021 as to why the testimonies of the defence witnesses were disregarded despite the three others called to the witness box by the appellant corroborating the appellant's version of where the appellant was and what he was doing on May 28, 2015.