MILAN RAI Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted by the Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), South Sikkim at Namchi, in Session Trial (POCSO), Case No. 16 of 2014, by judgment and Order on Sentence dated 30-5- 2015, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act"), read with Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only, with a default stipulation. This Appeal assails both. The Prosecution case unfolded that on 18-8-2014, a written FIR, Exhibit 7, was lodged by one Lucky Rai, P.W.5 of Lungchok, South Sikkim, informing therein that the victim, aged about 15 years, had been sexually assaulted by Milan Rai, the Appellant herein, and also by one Jiwan Kumar Rai, both allegedly her cousins. Based on the FIR, Jorethang P.S. Case was registered on 18-8-2014 under Section 376 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, against both the above named persons and endorsed to the Investigating Officer (for short "I.O.") for investigation. Investigation led to the finding that, the victim was a Seventh Standard Student of Namchi Girls School, a boarder in a hostel at Singhithang, Namchi, South Sikkim, who returned home to Lungchok, South Sikkim, for Vacations. On 11-1-2014, after attending a birthday party, Jiwan Kumar Rai volunteered to escort her back home where enroute he enticed her to a nearby field and forcibly raped her. Sometime in mid-January, 2014, he raped her for a second time when she had gone to attend the death rituals of her aunt, this time too, having volunteered to escort her back home and enroute dragged her to a field near her home and committed the offence.

(2.) Records of the Learned Trial Court reveal that the trial of Jiwan Kumar Rai and the Appellant were bifurcated, the case against Jiwan Kumar Rai being numbered as ST (POCSO) Case No. 13 of 2014 while that against the appellant was recorded as ST (POCSO) Case No. 16 of 2014 and trials conducted separately.

(3.) The Learned Trial Court framed charges against the Appellant under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2) of the IPC and on a plea of "Not guilty", evidence was led by the Prosecution by examining fifteen witnesses in an effort to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. To disprove the Prosecution case, the Appellant examined one witness Sajan Kumar Gurung as DW1. The Learned Trial Court on consideration of the evidence, convicted the Appellant as adumbrated hereinabove.