KARMA LODAY LEPCHA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point pressed in Appeal herein is that the Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), Gangtok, in the impugned Judgment dtd. 29/3/2023, in Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case No.48 of 2019, erroneously convicted the Appellant under Sec. 5(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, 'POCSO Act, 2012') punishable under Sec. 6 of the same Act, when the Learned Trial Court was seized of the fact that the victim was above twelve years old at the time of the offence as emanates from Paragraph 26 of its Judgment. That, this error is required to be rectified as the records nowhere indicate that the victim was below 12 (twelve) years of age when the offence was perpetrated on her. That, the Birth Certificate of the victim, Exhibit 1, also reveals that her date of birth is 17/3/2003, and her evidence lends credence to this fact as according to her sometime during the year 2016 the first sexual assault took place, pursuant to which she delivered a baby girl on 4/11/2016. Thus, under no circumstance was she under 12 (twelve) years of age at the time of the offence. There is no challenge to the Judgment as regards the conviction and Order on Sentence under other provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012.

(2.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that an error has emanated in the impugned Judgment of the Learned Trial Court and hence, he has no objection to the submissions put forth by Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

(3.) We have heard the submissions put forth and perused all the documents on record.