SIKKIM HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON ARJUN KUMAR PRASAD V/S STATE OF SIKKIM

GANGTOK, India, June 25 -- Sikkim High Court issued the following judgment/order on June 19:

1. The Appellant was charged with the offence under Section 5(j)(ii), punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, "POCSO Act") and Section 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/- (Rupees two thousand) only, with a default stipulation, vide the impugned Judgment, dated 03-04- 2024, in ST (POCSO) Case No.08 of 2022, of the Court of the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012). For the offence under Section 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 P2/PW-2, lodged by PW-2 the victim's sister, on 01-02-2022, 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 Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act and investigation was endorsed to PW-7, the Sub-Inspector at the PS.

(i) Upon completing her investigation, finding prima facie materials against the Appellant, Charge-Sheet was submitted in the Court. Charge was framed against the Appellant under Section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO (Amendment) Act, 2019 and under Section 376(1) of the IPC, to which the Appellant claimed trial, having pled "not guilty". The Prosecution examined eight witnesses, upon closure of which, the Appellant was afforded an opportunity under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to explain the incriminating evidence against him. He claimed innocence and asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the case. Final arguments of the parties were heard. On appreciating the entire evidence on record, the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence were pronounced by the Trial Court.

3. The Prosecution narrative is that, on 31-01-2022, the victim was brought to the District Hospital, in the evening, with a history of abdominal pain and bleeding since 28-01-2022. 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.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that it is the Prosecution case that on 31-01-2022 medical examination of the victim was conducted. According to the Doctor, PW-4, her examination per abdomen, revealed "22 weeks uterus PV Grade II perineal tear, boggymass felt introitus .................. and no fetus was present". If such be the circumstance, since the victim claims to have had sexual intercourse with the Appellant in the month of November, 2021, the gestation of the pregnancy would have been about eight weeks. This is in direct contradiction to the finding of PW-4, who opined that the uterus indicated twenty-two weeks pregnancy. Thus, the victim's evidence is not of sterling quality. To buttress this submission, Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Cho Mingur Lepcha vs. State of Sikkim1 , wherein this Court was of the view that, the victim appeared to be concealing the actual circumstances of her pregnancy as she gave birth in May, 2020, after making claims of being raped by the Appellant in December, 2019/January 2020. Her evidence was rejected as being unreliable. Contending that the circumstances appear to be similar in the instant case the victim's evidence it was urged deserves to be rejected.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://hcs.gov.in/hcs/hg_orders/202100000212024_7.pdf

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.