NISANUL ISLAM BARBHUIYA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment and order dtd. 28/3/2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 52/2019, wherein vide order dtd. 28/3/2024, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant, Mohammed Nisanul Islam Barbhuiya @Lisanul Barbhuiya (herein after referred to as the appellant or the accused), under Sec. 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act for short) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000.00 with default stipulation, and also convicted the appellant under S. 354A(i)(iii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 with default situation. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution failed to bring home the charges leveled against the appellant but the learned Trial Court erroneously convicted the appellant. The learned Trial Court ignored the discrepancies and the contradictions in the evidence including the evidence of the prime prosecution witnesses which was not found to be creditworthy. The presence of appellant was not at all possible considering the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time. Without any direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence, the Trial Court went ahead and convicted the appellant with a preconceived mind.

(3.) The learned Trial Court has completely ignored that the sole testimony of the PW's that the accused attempted to commit sexual assault is contrary to the contents of the FIR. The entire prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence, but the chain of circumstances was unmistakably incomplete and hypothetically the appellant was held guilty of offences which he did not commit. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside as the learned Trial Court decided the case in a very mechanical and arbitrary manner.