RONAL MURMU Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgement dtd. 12/3/2020 and related order of sentence dtd. 10/7/2020 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), RiBhoi District, Nongpoh, in Special POCSO Case No. 54 of 2015 is under challenge in this criminal appeal.

(2.) On 24/6/2016, the charge against the appellant was framed by the learned Trial Court u/S 363/376(2)(i)(n) IPC and Sec. 4/6 of POCSO Act to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses and exhibited as many as seven documents marked as Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 7. The statement of the appellant u/S 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 19/11/2018. The appellant did not adduce any defence witness. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the prosecution and the defence acquitted the appellant of the charge u/S 363 IPC, but convicted him u/S 363/376(2)(i) IPC and Sec. 4 of POCSO Act by the impugned judgment dtd. 12/3/2020 and by order dtd. 10/7/2020 sentenced the appellant to undergo 10 (ten) years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000.00, and in default, to undergo further 6 (six) months simple imprisonment. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Mr. S. D. Upadhaya, learned LAC for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has miserably failed to notice the glaring contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and thereby came to a wrong conclusion resulting in conviction of the appellant. He submits that admittedly there is no eye-witness in the case and the deposition of PW-3, the survivor, does not speak of commission of any sexual offence on her by the appellant. He contends that the evidence of PW-1 as well as PW-2 is totally silent as regard to allegation of sexual offence against the appellant. The allegation of kidnapping of the survivor, he submits, also stood negated as the Trial Court has exonerated the appellant of the charge U/s 363 IPC. He submits that the evidence of PW-3 speaks only of her having physical relationship with the appellant and the extent of 'physical relationship' has not been explained. The learned LAC referred to a decision of the High Court of Sikkim in Crl. A. No. 02 of 2019, Depesh Tamang Vs. State of Sikkim (2020: SHC: 47-DB) to contend that the term 'physical relationship' cannot be construed to mean sexual assault. He further submits that the learned Trial Court erroneously came to the conclusion that the survivor was 14 (fourteen) years old at the time of the commission of the alleged offence without any supporting materials on record as the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence in that regard. He, therefore, submits that the conviction and the sentence of the appellant is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside and quashed by this Court.