Sikkim HC Upholds 20-Year Sentence In POCSO Case | Substratum Of Prosecution Remains Intact Despite Minor Discrepancies
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Sikkim Division Bench of Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan confirmed the conviction and twenty-year sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 3(b) read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Court upheld the Special Judge's findings, stating that "the substratum of the prosecution case has remained intact" and dismissed the appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court further found no error in the order of sentence, including the minimum punishment of twenty years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- and a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded to the victim as per Schedule-I of the Sikkim Compensation to Victims (or their Dependents) Scheme, 2021. The Division Bench recorded that the deposition of the victim was corroborated by medical and testimonial evidence, including that of the victim's mother, the appellant's acquaintance, and police personnel, substantiating the charge of penetrative sexual assault committed by the appellant against a minor. Consequently, the appeal challenging the conviction and sentence was dismissed.
The case originated from an FIR lodged on 15 April 2020 by the mother of the minor victim under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The appellant, who was acquainted with the victim and her mother, was accused of having committed a sexual offence against the child. Following investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted, and the learned Special Judge framed eleven charges under Sections 3(a), 3(b), 5(m), 5(l), 9(l), 9(m) of the POCSO Act and Sections 376-AB, 376(2)(n), and 354 of the IPC.
The accused pleaded not guilty, and the trial commenced with the prosecution examining twelve witnesses, including the victim, her mother, and the investigating officer (PW-12). The appellant’s statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 12 July 2023. He denied the charges and claimed he was falsely implicated.
The prosecution evidence included testimonial support from the victim’s mother (PW-2), an acquaintance of the appellant (PW-4), the landlord (PW-7), and medical professionals. An ossification test was conducted by Dr. Kharananda Sharma (PW-6), who estimated the victim’s age to be between 7 and 10 years at the time of examination on 15 May 2020. The trial court concluded that the minor’s age was proven by both testimonial and medical evidence.
During the trial, the defence did not question the minor status of the victim or confront the witnesses regarding age. The appellant was ultimately convicted under Section 3(b) of the POCSO Act and sentenced under Section 4. He was acquitted of charges under Sections 3(a), 5(l), 5(m), and corresponding IPC sections.
The High Court assessed the consistency and corroboration of the prosecution’s case. It recorded that the FIR narrative was consistent with the deposition of the victim’s mother in court. The Court stated that "the deposition of the victim was corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the evidence of the victim’s mother (PW-2), the appellant’s friend (PW-4) and the landlord (PW-7)."
Addressing the contention regarding the reliability of the victim’s version, the Court noted that there were no significant contradictions brought out during cross-examination. It recorded that the FIR, which described the incident based on the victim’s account to her mother, mentioned a slightly different version than the one deposed in court. However, the Court found this discrepancy to be immaterial and stated that "the discrepancy is explainable as the FIR was not lodged by the victim but by her mother."
The Bench noted that the defence did not challenge the victim or her mother on these specific differences. PW-4, a neighbour and friend of the appellant, confirmed that the appellant had taken the victim to his house. He saw the child crying after the incident but received no explanation. Similarly, PW-5, an IRBn personnel, testified that he found the victim in a state of panic with the appellant and informed the police.
Head Constable (PW-8), dispatched by Sub-Inspector (PW-10), testified that she found the victim crying in the presence of the appellant and notified the child’s mother. Sub-Inspector (PW-10) and the DSP (PW-9) corroborated the procedural events and documentation, fixing the date of incident as 14 April 2020.
The Court relied on the testimony of Dr. Uma Rai (PW-11), who examined the child on 15 April 2020 and found mild redness over the buttock region, as recorded in Exhibit P-6. The Division Bench stated: "The victim’s deposition about the actual act committed by the appellant which is sufficiently corroborated by the deposition of the prosecution witnesses as above also find corroboration from the medical evidence available."
In light of the collective evidence, the Court observed that the factual basis of the case was consistent and substantiated by multiple sources. The Court concluded: "We are of the considered view that the substratum of the prosecution case has remained intact and the minor discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant would not demolish the prosecution version."
The Division Bench confirmed the appellant’s conviction under Section 3(b) read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. It upheld the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, stating: "We find no errors in the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge."
The punishment, as prescribed under Section 4 of the POCSO Act for penetrative sexual assault on a child below 16 years of age, includes imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years, extendable to life imprisonment. The Bench recorded that the Special Judge had imposed the minimum sentence: "The learned Special Judge has imposed the minimum sentence of twenty years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence. We confirm the sentence imposed."
On the matter of victim compensation, the Court stated: "We are also of the view that the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in terms of Schedule-I to the Sikkim Compensation to Victims (or their Dependents) Scheme, 2021 ordered by the learned Special Judge is just and reasonable and accordingly confirm the same."
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and stood disposed of by the Division Bench.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. R.C. Sharma, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)
For the Respondent: Mr. S.K. Chettri, Additional Public Prosecutor with Mr. Sujan Sunwar, Assistant Public Prosecutor
Case Title: XXXX vs. State of Sikkim
Case Number: Crl. A. No. 31 of 2023
Bench: Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai, Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
[Read/Download order]
