ANANTA ALIAS AJAY GHOSH Vs. SUVAJIT GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A nine year old boy was subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the appellant. This is the gist of the prosecution case which was instituted pursuant to a written complaint lodged by P.W.3, the father of the victim boy alleging that on 28.9.2016 at 4.30 P.M., appellant had lured his 9 year old son to a solitary bamboo orchard on the promise of flying kites and had committed sexual assault on him. As a result, his son sustained bleeding injuries in his rectum and lost consciousness. Victim was removed to Bethuadahari Hospital and thereafter to Saktinagar District Hospital. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and charges were framed under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, the trial judge by the judgment and order dated 19.4.2017 convicted the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year more. Ninety per cent of the fine amount, if realised, was directed to be paid to the victim.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the evidence of the victim, P.W.2 suffers from inconsistencies and contradictions. Possibility of rectal injury due to other causes i.e. constipation or fall on a bamboo shoot cannot be wholly ruled out. While the mother of the victim, P.W.4 narrated the history of assault in the medical papers as attempted rape, prosecution witnesses improved their version in Court and alleged penetrative sexual assault on the victim. Appellant is, therefore, entitled to an order of acquittal.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Bapuli, learned Additional Public Prosecutor with Mr. Bhattacharyya argued that the evidence of the victim, P.W.2 is not only corroborated by his parents, P.W.3 and P.W.4 but other independent witnesses like P.W.7 and P.W.8. P.W.10, Medical Officer who first treated the victim found bleeding injury in the rectum. Other medical witness (P.W. 9) also disclosed lacerated rectal injury. Medical evidence has corroborated the ocular evidence of the victim (P.W. 2) relating to penetrative sexual assault and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.