HITESH BARMAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. PP for the State and Ms. Marami Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2

(2.) This appeal is against the impugned judgment dtd. 10/1/2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bongaigaon, in Special (P) Case No. 13(BGN)/2020, by which the appellant has been convicted under Sec. 376 (3) IPC read with Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act. However, the appellant has been sentenced under Sec. 376(3) IPC in view of Sec. 42 of the POCSO Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs.20,000.00, in default, simple imprisonment for one year.

(3.) The appellant's counsel submits that there is a major contradiction in the testimony of the victim (PW-3), when compared with the statement given by the victim under Sec. 161 Cr.PC. He submits that the victim in her testimony before the learned Trial Court has stated that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her. However, in the victim's statement under Sec. 164 Cr.PC, the victim has stated that the appellant had committed "bad act" upon her and had clarified the same by stating that the appellant touched her chest, vagina and used to insert his finger. He submits that the statement of the victim under Sec. 164 Cr.PC contradicts the evidence of the victim.