RINKU KUMAR TYAGI Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 16/12/2021 and order of sentence dtd. 20/12/2021, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), District and Sessions Court, Shillong in Special (POCSO) Case No.3/2016 and the accused / Appellant herein was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence under Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO Act, 2012') and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years under Sec. 366A of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00, in default to undergo Imprisonment for one month for each default. The Sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the total fine amount awarded as compensation was directed to be paid to the victim girl. Brief Prosecution Case:

(2.) A complaint was given by the father (P.W.1) of the victim girl on 5/4/2013 before Madanrting Police Station, East Khasi Hills, stating that his daughter aged 14 years was found missing on 4/4/2013 at 6.45am. With the help of the mobile number provided by the complainant, the victim girl was secured along with the accused from Jirania, Agartala, Tripura. Based on the complaint, FIR (Ex.P1) in Madanrting PS Case No.27(4) 2013 came to be registered against the accused under Sec. 366A IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that it is a case of love affair and the victim girl (P.W.8) on her own volition, had left the house and married the accused, which is evident from the 161 statement of the victim girl. There is no concrete evidence as to the age of the victim girl and the evidence of the Doctor in respect of assessment of her age was inconsistent, as no birth certificate or any other documents had been produced on the side of the prosecution to prove the age of the victim girl. According to the Appellant, the age of the victim girl would be more than 17 years, which is evident from the deposition of the Doctor (P.W.4). Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that though initially the case was registered under Sec. 366A IPC, subsequently, Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was included, while framing charges and in the absence of such inclusion, the accused could have been acquitted from the charges. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that as per the version of the D.W.1, both the accused and the victim girl got married in a mandir (Temple) and the victim girl looked as if her age was between 19 and 20 years.