(1.) The Respondent was acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sec. 451 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the "IPC"); Sec. 5(m) punishable under Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, the "POCSO Act") read with Sec. 511 of the IPC, as also under Sec. 7 punishable under Sec. 8 of the POCSO Act, vide the impugned Judgment, dtd. 27/4/2021, in Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case No.26 of 2018 (State of Sikkim vs. Prem Bahadur Biswakarma), by the Court of the Learned Special Judge (POCSO), East Sikkim, at Gangtok. Aggrieved, the State-Appellant has assailed the Judgment.
(2.) It is contended by Learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the victim in her testimony has detailed the commission of the offence. That, lack of injuries on the genital, anal area and person of the victim was due to the fact that the assault occurred in the month of May, 2018, but was belatedly reported only on June 5, 2018. The Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim recorded two days after the lodging of Ext 1 reveals that she had been subjected to sexual assault by the Respondent. Her evidence before the Court is cogent and consistent with regard to the incident. PWs 3 and 5 who she narrated the incident to have supported her evidence. PW-4 has also clearly stated that the Respondent had subjected her to sexual assault. Hence, the Learned Trial Court ought not to have acquitted the Respondent when such a heinous crime had been committed by a twenty-seven year old man on a child of eleven years.
(3.) Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the acquittal was the result of the victim's evidence being incoherent, vacillating and deserved no consideration. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court Kishore Gurung vs. State of Sikkim,2023 SCC OnLine Sikk 28. and Lhendup Lepcha vs. State of Sikkim,2022 SCC OnLine Sikk 57. to buttress his submissions. That, the impugned Judgment thereby warranted no interference.