ARJUN KUMAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant was charged with the offence under Sec. 5(j)(ii), punishable under Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, 'POCSO Act') and Sec. 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, 'IPC'). He was convicted for the POCSO offence (supra) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of twenty years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00 (Rupees two thousand) only, with a default stipulation, vide the impugned Judgment, dtd. 3/4/2024, in ST (POCSO) Case No.08 of 2022, of the Court of the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012). For the offence under Sec. 376(1) of the IPC, the Court ordered that, he need not be convicted for the same offence twice.

(2.) The genesis of the Prosecution case is the FIR Exbt P-2/PW-2, lodged by PW-2 the victim's sister, on 1/2/2022, before the jurisdictional Police Station, informing that her sister, aged about sixteen years, was taken to the District Hospital after she complained of stomach pain. The Doctor informed PW-2 that, the victim had miscarried, but the placenta remained inside. The victim revealed to PW-2, on her enquiry that, she was involved in a sexual relationship with the Appellant, in a hotel room, in the month of November, 2021. Although she informed him of the pregnancy, he paid no heed to her. A case was registered against the Appellant under Sec. 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act and investigation was endorsed to PW-7, the Sub-Inspector at the PS.

(3.) The Prosecution narrative is that, on 31/1/2022, the victim was brought to the District Hospital, in the evening, with a history of abdominal pain and bleeding since 28/1/2022. A urine test indicated pregnancy. A specimen of the placenta was collected and handed over for DNA analysis. It also emerged that the Appellant and the victim had met through social media platform (Facebook) in the month of March, 2021. The victim had sexual intercourse with the Appellant in November, 2021. After the incident, she missed two consecutive menstrual cycles which she brought it to the notice of the Appellant, but was ignored. Thereafter, the above circumstances unfolded.