DEEPAN DARJEE Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant was convicted under Section 5(m) punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, POCSO Act, 2012), and under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, IPC), vide the impugned Judgment dated 20-12-2018, in Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case No.31 of 2017. The Order on Sentence, dated 21-12-2018 incarcerated the Appellant to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fined him Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, under Section 5(m) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, with a default clause of imprisonment. Under Section 506 of the IPC, the Appellant was to undergo imprisonment (sans description) for one year and fined Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only, also with a default clause of imprisonment. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Assailing both, the Appellant contends that the Prosecution case is unsustainable as there was no corroboration in the evidence of the victim P.W.1, her mother P.W.8 and grandmother P.W.11 with that of P.W.3, the Doctor, who examined the victim but did not detect any abrasion or injuries in the victim's vagina. P.W.6 the Junior Scientific Officer of the Biological Division, RFSL, Saramsa, East Sikkim, has also failed to corroborate the Prosecution case. That, the statement of P.W.8 the victim's mother and P.W.11 her grandmother are exacerbated versions of the victim's statement who has nowhere stated that she was unable to walk or bled while passing urine or that the Appellant threatened to kill P.W.8 and P.W.11. The discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses lead to doubts in the Prosecution case the benefit of which ought to be extended to the Appellant. Hence, the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence be set aside.

(3.) Resisting these contentions, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor while drawing the attention of this Court to the evidence of not only P.W.1 the victim but also P.W.3 the Gynaecologist who examined the victim, urges that the Doctor has specifically stated that he prescribed medication to the victim since she complained of pain in her genital region, thereby establishing some injuries therein and substantiating the Prosecution case. The evidence of P.W.8 the victim's mother reveals with clarity that on the relevant day her daughter complained of pain in her abdomen and passed some blood in her urine. She also complained of pain while passing urine and was unable to walk, apart from P.W.8 detecting redness and bruising of the genital of the victim duly corroborated by P.W.11. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.8 finds support in the evidence of P.W.11 who stated that on their questioning P.W.1 narrated the incident of sexual assault by the Appellant on her. That, due to fear on account of the threat of physical harm held out by the Appellant to P.W.1 she had not revealed the incident to anyone earlier. Both P.W.8 and P.W.11 took the victim to the Doctor who advised them to approach the Police. As the Prosecution case has been established the Appeal be dismissed. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor in support of his case relied on Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State Government (NCT of Delhi), 2011 10 SCC 192.