ABDUL BATEN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dtd. 26/6/2020, passed by the learned Special Judge, Bilasipara in connection with Special (POCSO) case No. 11/2019, convicting Abdul Baten hereinafter referred to as the appellant under Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (POCSO Act for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI for short) for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000.00 with default stipulation and under Sec. 448 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 2 months.

(2.) The genesis of the case was that the informant 'Y' and his wife are labourers working in 'Sagar Itabhata'. He along with his three children including the victim 'X' were residing as tenants in Abdul Sayed's house. On 25/2/2019, at about 2 p.m., the appellant with wrongful intention came to the informant's house at Haldibari and committed criminal trespass. Grabbing the opportunity of his and his wife's absence, the appellant paid 10 rupees to the informant's sons 'Z' and 'A', and sent them to a shop. Thereafter, the appellant Abdul Baten gagged the minor victim girl 'X' who was alone at home and committed rape on the victim. The accused Jul Hoque and Hazrat Ali confined the appellant and restrained the police from registering the FIR. This led to the delay in lodgment of the FIR. The Investigating Officer (I.O. in short) embarked upon the investigation. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and forwarded the victim for medical examination and for recording her statements under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC for short). On completion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge under Sec. 448 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) read with Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act was framed, read over and explained to the appellant. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed innocence.

(3.) To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 12 witnesses and the defense cross-examined some witnesses to refute the charges. Some witnesses were not cross-examined. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Sec. 313 of the Cr.PC and his answers depicts a plea of total denial. The appellant did not tender any evidence in defense.