GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON SHRI BABUL DAS V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

GUWAHATI, India, June 16 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on May 15:

1. Heard Mr. D. Barua, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. J. Barua, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State of Assam as well as Mr. U. Choudhury, learned Legal Aid Counsel, representing the respondent no. 2.

2. The instant appeal, filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2022, passed by Additional Sessions cum Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar in Case No. Special (POCSO) 01/2021, arising out of Namti P.S. Case No. 27/2020, convicting the appellant/accused under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act) and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3(three) months.

3. The prosecution's case is that an FIR dated 24.12.2020, lodged by one Brojen Gogoi (the respondent no. 2) before the Officer Incharge of Namti Police Station, Sivasagar, alleging, inter alia, that their 13 years' old daughter (Ms. 'X', name not disclosed) had been lured by the appellant to go to his house without their knowledge; that on not seeing her for long, they asked their mason who was working in the entrance gate of their house, wherein they were told by him that the appellant had taken away their daughter to get a 'tegari'; that the victim girl could be seen coming crying and on being asked, she told them that the appellant had behaved indecently with her. It was also alleged in the FIR that the victim girl, on earlier occasions also told them that the appellant used to give her bad signal but they brushed those aside thinking that he must had been joking.

4. In view of the aforesaid FIR, Namti P.S. Case No. 27/2020, under Section 354 A of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act was registered.

5. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against the appellant under Section 354A of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. On 18.02.2021, charge was framed against the appellant under Section 354A of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution examined as many as six (6) witnesses, including the Investigating Officer (I/O). The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Two (2) witnesses were adduced on behalf of the defence. The defence plea was of denial. After hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar, vide Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2022, convicted the appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (5) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) months.

7. It is seen that there was no dispute regarding the age of the victim girl. The victim girl deposed in the Court that her date of birth is 28.11.2006. The father of the victim girl, the respondent no. 2, produced and exhibited the Birth Certificate of the victim girl as Exhibit-2, wherein, her date of birth has been mentioned as 28.11.2006. No dispute was raised about the age of the victim girl and therefore, it was held by the learned Trial Court that the victim girl was a minor at the time of the incident.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=zDLovBVSUw02H8XukOjXfMrQxNSjDwRrqnNMh8XgtTxpVZRMmWMHpLvBSuhEXSly&caseno=Crl.A./257/2022&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010197502022&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.