RAJEN ORAON Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 29th November, 2014 and 2nd December, 2014 passed by the Special Judge under POCSO Act, 2012 cum Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Darjeeling in Trial No. 4 of 2014 arising out of Special Case No. 4 of 2013 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act) and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the aforesaid offence.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, prosecution case is that on 19th August, 2013 the defacto complainant Sulo Munda lodged a written complaint at Pradhan Nagar P.S. stating that on 17th August, 2013 at night, her second husband Rajen Oraon inserted his finger in the private part of her minor daughter aged about five years. Consequently, the victim sustained serious injury in her private part. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint the proceeding being Pradhan Nagar P.S. Case No. 487 of 2013 dated 19.08.2013 was initiated under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/appellant. Investigation culminated in the submission of the charge- sheet under section 376(2)(f)(i) of the Indian Penal Code read with section 4 of POCSO Act against the accused/appellant. The trial court framed the charge for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. read with section 4 of POCSO Act against the accused/appellant. Being so arraigned, the accused pleaded not guilty to the indictment and claimed to be tried.

(3.) In course of trial, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses namely, P.W.-1 is the doctor who has a private clinic at Milan Mero, Champasari. This witness testified in his evidence that on 18.08.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. a woman named Sulo Munda and her daughter came to him. He was informed by the woman that her husband Rajen Oraon had injured the private part of her daughter. P.W.1 gave skin ointment and four pain killer tablets to the lady. P.W.2 is the defacto complainant who is the mother of the victim. P.W.3 is a neighbour of the defacto complainant. P.W.4 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who submitted the charge- sheet after completion of investigation by the previous Investigating Officer. P.W.5 is the victim of sexual abuse. P.W.6 is the brother of the victim. P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.9 are the neighbours of the defacto complainant. P.W.10 is the scribe of the FIR. P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer of this case. P.W.12 is the Medical Officer who examined the victim child and P.W.13 is the doctor who medically examined the accused and opined that "there is nothing to suggest that the subject is incapable of performing sexual intercourse". Apart from the witnesses referred, prosecution brought on record several documents which were tendered in evidence.