Contradictory statements of victim and no evidence of sexual assault
STAFF REPORTER
GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has set aside the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Darrang in a POCSO case after the court found the statements of the victim to be contradictory and not worthy of credence. Also, no evidence of sexual assualt was found during the medical examination of the victim.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast-track court, Darrang, Mangaldai, in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 67/2019, passed an order on 28.09.2021 convicting Gautam Biswas (Seal) u/s 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs 2,000, with default clause u/s 366 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs 3,000, with default clause and u/s 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000 with default clause. Gautam Biswas then appealed against this judgement before the Gauhati High Court.
The victim’s mother had alleged that on 24.07.2018, the accused, who is a relative, visited their house and stayed overnight. The next morning, the accused eloped with her daughter. At the time of the incident, her daughter was a student of Class X. The family members of the victim went to the accused’s house and found the victim in his house, but the family members of the accused refused to hand over the victim. The victim’s mother then lodged an FIR after two days. The police recovered the victim from the accused person’s house. Based on the FIR, a case was registered in Mangaldai PS (575/2018 u/s 376 IPC).
During the hearing in this case in the High Court, the counsel for the accused submitted that the victim was a major at the time of the incident and she had eloped with the accused on her own volition. The court observed that the victim’s claim of sexual assault was not substantiated by the evidence of the Medical Officer as no marks of violence or injury marks were detected on her private parts. “When the evidence of the prosecutrix is not substantiated by the evidence of the MO (Medical Officer) and I/O (Investigating Officer) then doubt slowly infiltrates,” the court noted.
The court also noted that victim alleged that the accused forced her to board a bus to Guwahati. The court said, “If the victim was unwilling to proceed with the accused to Morigaon or to Guwahati, she would have easily raised alarm, because she was travelling in a bus and the people would have rescued her from the clutches of the accused. The evidence of the victim appears to be too farfetched and sketchy.”
The court order stated, “After going through the evidence of the prosecutrix, it is evident that the statement of the prosecutrix at every stage has improved, changed and has contradicted its earlier statement and the testimony of the prosecutrix suffers from material inconsistency and as per the settled law conviction cannot be based on such testimony of the prosecutrix which is not worthy of credence.”
As the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of offence under sections 363/366 IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the Gauhati High Court set aside the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast-track court, Darrang, dated 28.09.2021. The court also ordered the release of the accused.
Also Watch: