MEHEBUL ISLAM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P. for respondent No. 1 and Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

(2.) This appeal is preferred u/s 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC for short) challenging the judgment and order dtd. 29/6/2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara in Sessions Case No. 110/2017 convicting the appellant u/s 448/376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and sentencing him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 6 months for offence u/s 448 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000.00with default stipulation for offence u/s 376 IPC.

(3.) The brief facts leading to this case are that on 19/7/2017 Mehbul Islam (hereinafter the appellant) trespassed into the informant's house in absence of the other family members and committed rape on the informant's daughter (hereinafter referred to as 'X' or victim). The informant lodged an FIR which was registered as Krishnai P.S. Case No. 187/2017 u/s 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act for short). The Investigating Officer (IO in short) embarked upon the investigation. He forwarded the victim for medical examination and for recording her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and on completion of trial he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant u/s 448/376 IPC read with Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act. On appearance of the appellant, the case was committed for trial. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge u/s 448/376 IPC was framed and read over and explained to the appellant who adjured his guilt and claimed innocence. To connect the appellant to crime the prosecution adduced the evidence of eight (8) witnesses including the Medical Officer (MO for short) and the IO whereas the appellant did not tender any evidence in defence. To the incriminating circumstances arising against him, the statement of the appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC and his responses were recorded. The learned trial Court relied on the sole testimony of the victim and convicted the appellant.