Guwahati, Dec 18: The Gauhati High Court has set aside the conviction of a man under Section 4 of the POCSO Act passed by a trial court in Karbi Anglong, by giving him the benefit of the doubt on the ground that the “testimony of the victim girl does not inspire confidence and remained uncorroborated.”
“As regards the question as to whether the victim was forcefully subjected to sexual intercourse recently before such medical examination or not, no such conclusive evidence is there as the medical evidence on record also failed to suggest that the victim was subjected to forceful sexual intercourse,” a single-judge bench of the High Court observed.
“Moreover, considering the fact that the testimony of the victim girl while she has deposed before the court is inconsistent and totally contradictory to her statements which she has made while her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as well as made under Section 161 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, this court is of considered opinion that it may not be safe to rely on sole testimony of the victim girl, to arrive at a finding of guilt of the present appellant,” the High Court noted.
“As the testimony of the victim girl does not inspire confidence and the same remained uncorroborated in material particulars, the appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt in the instant case,” it observed.
Notably, the case of the prosecution was that the informant had lodged an FIR before the in-charge of Diphu Bazar Town Outpost (Karbi Anglong district), alleging that the daughter of the first informant (herein referred to as victim), aged about 14 years at that time was lured by the accused-appellant when she had gone for shopping.
On the basis of the FIR, a case was registered under Section 366A of the IPC. After the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted under Section 366 A of the IPC and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused-appellant.
Thereafter, the trial court framed the charge under Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the appellant. The appellant was convicted by the trial court under the said provision and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs 10,000.
The accused-appellant’s counsel argued that the version of the alleged incident narrated by the victim during trial was entirely different from her version during her examination under Section 164 of CrPC.
The appellant’s counsel further submitted that the medical report of the victim also did not corroborate the testimony of the victim.
