AMIRUL GAIN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has assailed judgment and order dtd. 20/3/2018 and 21/3/2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Barasat, in Sessions Trial No. 07(11)2016 (Special case No. 259 of 2016) convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more and directing compensation to the tune of Rs.4.5 lakhs be paid to the mother of the victim girl (P.W. 2) through the District Legal Service Authority, North 24 Parganas.

(2.) Appellant had a live in relationship with the mother of the victim (P.W. 2). They were residing together in a rented apartment in the house of one Surajit Pal (P.W. 5). It is alleged during the absence of P.W. 2, the appellant subjected her daughter, a eight years old child, to penetrative sexual assault on various occasions by putting his mouth on her vagina and inserting his penis into her mouth. Initially, the victim remained quiet as she was threatened by the appellant. Finally, she came out with the sordid details to her mother, P.W. 2. P.W. 2 confronted the appellant but he denied. When she expressed her intention to lodge criminal case, appellant left the rented apartment and started living with his family at Deganga. P.W. 2 lodged written complaint at Bongaon police station resulting in Bongaon P.S. Case No. 938/16 dtd. 7/9/2016 against the appellant under Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. In the course of investigation, the minor was medically examined and her statement was recorded before Magistrate. Appellant was arrested and medically examined. Charge-sheet was filed and charges under Sec. 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act as well as 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) In the course of trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses including the victim as P.W.1. The defence of the appellant is one of innocence and false implication. It was his specific defence that P.W. 2 had demanded a sum of Rs.7.00 lakhs and a house between Madhyamgram and Barasat. Father of the appellant offered them to stay in a land adjoining his house. But P.W. 2 refused and falsely implicated the appellant. She had developed intimate relationship with another man and had assaulted the appellant. To probabilise his defence appellant examined his maternal uncle and a neighbour as D.W. 1 and 2 respectively.