DISROYWEL WAHLANG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 26/7/2023 and the order of sentence dtd. 31/7/2023, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh in Special (POCSO) Case No.34 of 2018 and the accused / Appellant herein was convicted by the Trial Court for the offences under Ss. 3(a)/4/7/8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO Act, 2012') punishable under Ss. 319/321/323/354/354B/361/366/375(a) falling under 375(2)(i)(j) IPC,1860 by invoking Sec. 42 of the POCSO Act, 2012 (alternative punishment) and sentenced as follows: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_3_LAWS(MEGH)8_2024_1.jpg</IMG> The Trial Court held that the convict is entitled to the benefit of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C. and the period already undergone in prison was ordered to be set off. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the fine amount was directed to be paid to the victim girl. Aggrieved by the order of the Special Judge (POCSO), Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh, dtd. 26/7/2023 and the order of sentence dtd. 31/7/2023, the Appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal before this Court. Brief Prosecution Case:

(2.) A complaint was given by the mother / P.W.2 of the victim girl on 3/12/2016 before Umsning Out-Post Police Station, Ri-Bhoi District, stating that the accused, namely, Wahlang had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her daughter aged about 13 years and also raped her on 1/12/2016. Based on the complaint, FIR (Ex.P6) in Nongpoh P.S.Case No.212 (12) 2016 came to be registered on 4/12/2016 against the accused under Ss. 363, 323, 376 (2) (i) and 506 IPC r/w Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a false case has been foisted against the appellant without any conclusive proof against the accused and there were several inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidence of the victim girl, inasmuch as on one hand, she deposed that she knows the accused and on the other, during cross examination, she denied her personal knowledge about the accused. Above all, in her deposition in cross, she stated that the accused was her boyfriend. In many places during cross examination, she did not refuse her relationship with the accused. It was further submitted that the evidence of the victim girl (P.W.1) weighs more importance in a case of this nature and when inconsistencies were found in her statements, certainly, it can be inferred that there is a possibility of tutoring of the victim girl.