GUWAHATI, India, Oct. 27 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Sept. 26:

1. Heard Mr. B. D. Knowar the learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. M. Zomuanpuii, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent as well as Mr. A. Phukan, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No.2.

2. This Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the present appellant, Jagadish Pasowan, impugning the judgment and order dated 14.10.2022, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge-cum-Special Judge, Tinsukia (POCSO) in POCSO Case No. 10/2019, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further 6 months.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that on 13.04.2019, the mother of the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Tinsukia Police Station, interalia, alleging that at around 12.00 p.m. on that day, when she could not find her minor daughter aged about 4 years, for a long time, she searched for her and saw her daughter in a naked state in the bed of the appellant. The Appellant was also found there. On receipt of the said FIR, Tinsukia P. S. Case No. 490/2019 was registered under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and the investigation was initiated.

4. Ultimately, upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid against the appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The appellant was arrested on 14.04.2019. The charges under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was framed by the Trial Court on 21.10.2019, against the appellant. When the said charge was read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

5. To bring home the charges, the prosecution side examined six prosecution witnesses. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution side, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein the appellant denied the truthfulness of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and pleaded his innocence. However, he did not adduce any defense evidence. Ultimately, by the judgment, which has been impugned in this appeal, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the manner as already described in paragraph No. 2, of this judgment hereinbefore.

6. Before considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, let us go through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which is available on record.

7. The PW-1, Dr. Warisa Bora, who was a Medical and Health Officer, No. 1 at Tinsukia Civil Hospital and who examined the victim girl, in connection with Tinsukia P. S. Case No. 490/2019, on 13.04.2019, has deposed that on examination of the victim girl, she did not find any sign of injury mark, other than genital dentition-20 (temporary). On local examination of the private parts, hymen was found intact, and there was no injury on the private parts. It was deposed that as per radiological examination, the age of the victim girl was estimated to, in between 5 to 7 years. She also opined that, there was no suggestive sign of penetration of vagina, and no sign suggestive of sexual intercourse. Cross-examination was declined by the prosecution side.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=zDLovBVSUw02H8XukOjXfKYg3tnUpIxh%2Br2NzXcCRnwcIjoby9eZgnCTstsyFVrY&caseno=Crl.A./324/2022&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010244922022&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.