ARBINDO MANDAL Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Mr. M. Boje, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for respondent No.2.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 29/4/2014, in the evening, an FIR was lodged by one Smti Reena Dutta against the accused Arbindo Mandal with the allegations that the accused has been sexually assaulting his 14-year-old daughter since the last one year. And whenever she used to refuse his said advances, the accused used to also physically assault her. And out of fear, the victim was unable to disclose the matter earlier. On the basis of the FIR, Pasighat PS No. 29 of 2014 was registered under Sec. 376 (2)(f)(i) IPC read with Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act 2012. Upon completion of investigation, the IO laid charge sheet against the accused under the aforesaid Sec. .

(3.) After taking cognizance and necessary formalities, charges were framed against the accused by the learned Trial Court under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act 2012 read with Sec. 376(2)(f)(i) IPC. The charge being denied by the accused led to commencement of the trial. During the trial, the prosecution side examined 12 witnesses including the informant victim, IO and medical officer. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, two witnesses were adduced from the side of the accused and they were cross-examined by the prosecution.