ANDREW RANI Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 27/4/2022 and the order of sentence dtd. 29/4/2022, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong in Special (POCSO) Case No.10/2013 and the accused/Appellant herein was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence under Sec. 376(2) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000.00, in default to undergo one year imprisonment. The total fine amount awarded as compensation was directed to be paid to the victim girl. Brief Prosecution Case:

(2.) An FIR was given by the mother (P.W.1) of the victim girl (P.W.2) on 7/12/2012 before the Officer-in-Charge, Pasture Beat House, Polo, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, stating that her daughter aged 4 years was raped on 5/12/2012 by one Arup Baruaa, a Juvanile. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer-in-charge of Sadar Police Station registered a case vide Sadar P.S. Case No.217 (12)12 under Sec. 376(2)(f) IPC. Subsequently, the victim girl (P.W.2) was sent for medical examination and during interaction with the victim girl by her aunt, it was disclosed by her that the accused also involved in the commission of offence and when it was reported to the Police by the family members about the statement made by the victim girl and also the confrontation of the accused herein, the Investigating Officer had informed the complainant that there was no necessity to register one more FIR against the accused, as the subsequent development can be investigated along with the earlier FIR.

(3.) After investigation, a Charge Sheet No.141/2013 dtd. 26/8/2013 was laid before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereafter, the case was committed to the Special Judge (POCSO) for trial, who framed the charges against the accused under Sec. 377 and Sec. 5(m)/6 against the child in conflict with law and under Sec. 376 (2)(f) and Sec. 5(m)/6 against the accused. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the commission of the offence against the accused, has examined as many as 10 witnesses and marked 7 documents. On the side of the accused, though two witnesses were examined, no document was marked. Statements under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. were obtained from P.W. 1, the victim girl (P.W.2) and Master Aibanjop Jarian (P.W.10). The accused was questioned under Sec. 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 offenceunder Sec. 3(a)/5(l)(m)/6 of the Act of 2012 and under Sec. 375(a) falling under 375 (sixthly)/376(2)(j)(n) IPC, 1860 convicted him as stated supra.