RAJINGSTAR THABAH Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 8/7/2022 and the order of sentence dtd. 11/7/2022, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong in Special POCSO Case No.5 of 2018 and the accused / Appellant herein was convicted by the Trial Court for an offence under Sec. 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short "POCSO Act, 2012") and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 18 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000.00, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for another 3 months. The fine amount was directed to be given to the victim girl.

(2.) A complaint was given by the mother of the victim girl on 3/11/2017 before Sohiong Police Outpost, East Khasi Hills, stating that the accused, namely, Rajingstar Thabah had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her daughter aged about 5 years and 10 months and also threaten her with dire consequences. Based on the complaint, FIR (Ex.P2) in Mawngap P.S.Case No.43 (11) 2017 came to be registered against the accused under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Sec. 376(2)(i) and Sec. 511/506 IPC. Since there was no material evidence adduced by the prosecution against the accused under Sec. 506 IPC, there was no conviction imposed under the said Sec. .

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellant / accused, amidst several points raised in the appeal, assailed the judgment and order of the Trial Court on the sole ground that the appellant has been convicted purely on the basis of the evidence of the victim girl (P.W.2) and as per the settled law, the sole testimony must have a sterling quality and instil confidence in the mind of the Court. Moreover, there was no corroboration of the evidence of P.W.2 with the medical document. He submitted that there were several contradictions and inconsistencies in the depositions of P.W.2 between her Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement, chief and cross examinations. He also pointed out that even as per the version of the Doctor (P.W.7), who examined the victim girl, she had opined that there was no abnormality found in her vital part and the hymen was intact, as there was no possibility of penetration in the private part of the victim girl. The Doctor further opined that even though there was redness and white discharge on the vaginal part of the victim girl, it could have been due to unhygienic infection. He further submitted that in the absence of medical corroboration, there was no sexual assault on the victim girl by the appellant herein. He also submitted that there was a delay of two days in lodging the complaint and there was no explanation forthcoming for the delay in lodgement of the complaint. Thus, he pleaded that there were several flaws committed by the prosecution and sought for interference by this Court in the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court.