DHAN KUMAR CHETTRI Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Sec. 3(b) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the POCSO Act) punishable under Sec. 4 thereof. He was not punished for the same offence under Sec. 9(l) and 9(m) punishable under Sec. 10 of the POCSO Act and under Sec. 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC). The appellant was acquitted for the charge under Sec. 3(a) punishable under Sec. 4 and under Sec. 5(l) and 5(m) punishable under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and under Sec. 376-AB, 376(2)(n) of the IPC.

(2.) The FIR was lodged on 15/4/2020 against the appellant under Sec. 354 of the IPC and Sec. 8 of the POCSO Act on a complaint made by the victim's mother (PW-2). After the charge-sheet was filed, the learned Special Judge framed eleven charges under Sec. 3(a), 3(b), 5(m), 5(l), 9(l), 9(m) of the POCSO Act and under Sec. 376-AB, 376(2)(n) and 354 of the IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses including Tara Sharma (PW-12)-the Investigating Officer. The appellant's statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 12/7/2023 when he stated that he was not aware of or that the circumstances against him were not true. He claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated.

(3.) The learned Special Judge examined the evidence and concluded that the deposition of the victim was corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the evidence of the victim's mother (PW-2), the appellant's friend (PW-4) and the landlord (PW-7).