LALIT CHETTRI Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant herein, aged about twenty nine years, is alleged to have sexually assaulted the victim, aged about eight years. The Court of the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short the "POCSO Act"), South Sikkim at Namchi, convicted the Appellant of the offence under Section 9 (m) punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only, under the said provisions of law. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to further one month imprisonment. The fine, if recovered, was to be made over to the victim, as compensation.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the victim has not given a correct account of the incident, since there are contradictions in the evidence of the victim PW1 and other witnesses being PW2 and PW3. PW1, the victim, has not stated in her evidence that the Appellant had kissed her, while PW2 and PW3 have stated that the Appellant had kissed the victim. PW3 has said that he did not narrate the incident to anyone but as per PW2, PW3 narrated the incident to him after which they went to the house of the Appellant together. This event is however not corroborated by PW3. In view of the aforestated anomalies and contradictory evidence, according to learned Counsel for the Appellant it is doubtful as to whether the incident occurred at all. Hence, the Appeal be allowed and the Appellant be acquitted of the offence.

(3.) Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State contended that the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 have withstood the test of cross-examination and none of the statements made by the three witnesses nor their evidence- in-chief have been controverted or decimated in cross- examination. No reason whatsoever arises for the victim to have made out a false case against the Appellant and the consistent evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 lends support to the Prosecution case. In such a circumstance, the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence should not be interfered with.