Gauhati High Court
Md Fosoruddin Alias Bengu Seikh vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 21 July, 2026
Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010014242026
2026:GAU-AS:9968
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./36/2026
MD FOSORUDDIN ALIAS BENGU SEIKH
S/O- LT. JOHURUDDIN, R/O- VILL- SIDHAKHOWA, P.O.- UDALGURI P.S.-
ROWTA, DISTRICT- UDALGURI, ASSAM, PIN-784514
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM.
2:MD SURAJ ALI
S/O- LT. KAMARUDDIN FAKIR
R/O- SIDHAKHOWA
P.O.- UDALGURI
P.S.- ROWTA
DISTRICT- UDALGURI
ASSAM
PIN-784514
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAUHAN, B CHOWHAN,R DEB,M. BORUAH,MR. P
MAZUMDER
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Advocates for the Appellant : Mr. S. Chauhan
Page No.# 2/18
Mr. P. Mazumder
Advocate for the respondents : Ms. S.H. Bora, Addl.P.P.
Ms. T. Parashar, Amicus Curiae.
Date on which judgment is reserved: 21.05.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 21.07.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative part of the judgment : Full judgment.
Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced : Yes
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.12.2025
and 09.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Udalguri in connection
with Special (POCSO) Case No. 116/2023, convicting Md. Fosoruddin @ Bengu
Seikh (hereinafter referred to as the appellant or the accused) under Section
448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and sentencing him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and under Section 8 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POSCO Act for short)
and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with default clause.
Factual Matrix :-
2. The genesis of the case was that on 21.05.2023 at about 2:00 PM when
the informant and the other family members were not at home, the appellant in
the pretext of charging his mobile phone, entered into the informant’s house
Page No.# 3/18and forcefully committed rape on the minor victim X. The minor victim X is the
granddaughter of the informant Y. The victim was only 12 years of age at the
time of the alleged incident. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the informant Y,
Rowta PS Case No. 101/2023 was registered under section 448/376(3) IPC read
with Section 4 of the POCSO Act and the Investigating Officer (IO for short) was
entrusted with the investigation.
3. The IO embarked upon the investigation. He recorded the statements of
the witnesses, prepared a sketch map of the place of occurrence (PO for short)
and forwarded the victim for medical examination. The victim was also
forwarded to the Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short). On finding prima facie
materials, charge sheet was laid against the appellant under section 448/376(3)
of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. On the appearance of the
appellant, a formal charge under section 448/376(3) IPC read with section 4 of
the POCSO Act was framed and read over and explained to the appellant and
the appellant abjured his guilt and claimed innocence.
4. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 8
(Eight) witnesses including the Medical Officer (MO for short) and the IO and
the defence adduced the evidence of 3 (Three) witnesses to refute the charges.
5. On the incriminating circumstances arising against him, several questions
were asked to the appellant and the tenor of his answers, depicts a plea of total
denial. His answers appear to be evasive in nature. To substantiate the
evidence, several documents have also been examined. The witnesses
examined in this case, and the documents exhibited are as follows :-
Page No.# 4/18
A P P E N D I X
LIST OF THE PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES
A. Prosecution
Rank Name Nature of evidence
P.W.-1 Md. Suraj Ali Informant witness.
P.W.-2 Victim-X Informant witness.
P.W.-3 Mosst. Saharu Begum Other witness.
P.W.-4 Mosst. Anjumera Begum Other witness.
P.W.-5 Musst. Rabiya Khatun Other witness.
P.W.-6 Md. Jalaluddin Ahmed Other witness.
P.W.-7 Dr. Nobojit Hajoari Medical witness.
P.W.-8 SI Bhagya Deka Police witness.
B. Defence witnesses :-
Rank Name Nature of evidence
D.W.-1 Md. Fosoruddin @ Bengu Seikh Other witness.
D.W.-2 Mosst. Sabina Yasmin @ Begum Other witness.
D.W.-3 Md. Muhajal Ali Other witness.
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS
A. Prosecution Exhibits
Sl. No. Exhibit Number Description
1. Ext.-P1/PW1 Ejahar.
2. Ext.-P2/PW1 Seizure list.
3. Ext.-P3/PW2 Statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
4. Ext.P4/PW7 Medical report.
5. Ext.-P5/PW8 Sketch map
Page No.# 5/18
6. Ext.-P6/PW8 Charge sheet
6. The following points were taken up to decide this case in its proper
perspective.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:-
“I. Whether the Accused A-1, on 21-05-2023, at about 02 PM at village
Sidhakhowa under Rowta P.S., committed house trespass by entering into
the residential house of informant with intent to commit rape upon the
victim, as alleged?
II. Whether the Accused A-1, on 21-05-2023, at about 02 PM at village
Sidhakhowa under Rowta P.S., forcibly dragged the victim inside the house
and committed rape upon the victim girl ‘X’ under 16 years of age, as
alleged?
III. Whether the Accused A-1, on 21-05-2023, at about 02 PM at village
Sidhakhowa under Rowta P.S., committed penetrative sexual assault upon
victim a minor girl, as alleged?”
7. It has been held by the learned Trial Court that the victim as PW-2 has
substantiated the prosecution case of her grandfather that when the informant
and his family members went towards the market, the victim was alone at home
and then the appellant came and dragged the victim from the place where she
was washing the utensils and brought her inside the house and committed rape
on her.
8. This fact has been narrated by the victim as PW-2, who also stated that
she was alone at home with her 10 year old brother and she was washing
utensils while her brother was playing outside when the appellant came to their
Page No.# 6/18
house in the pretext of charging his mobile. The appellant then brought her
inside and committed rape on her. When she raised alarm, her younger brother
came and then the appellant fled. It has also been held by the learned Trial
Court that the evidence of the victim as PW-2 is consistent to her statement
under Section 164 CrPC. It was also held that the evidence of PW-3, 4 and 5
substantiates and corroborates the evidence of the PW-1 as well as the
informant.
9. The Trial Court has held that as the medico-legal report of the victim does
not reveal any injuries on her private parts, there appears to be a nagging
doubt if the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim.
Appellant was then held guilty of offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act
instead of Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 3 (Three) years.
10. Heard learned counsel Mr. S. Chauhan and Mr. P. Mazumder for the
appellant, learned Amicus Curiae Ms. T. Parashar for the respondent No. 2 and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. S.H. Bora for the respondent No. 1.
Arguments for the Appellant :-
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has laid stress in his argument that
there are too many contradictions in the evidence and the appellant is entitled
to a benefit of doubt. It is submitted that the victim deposed as PW-2 that PW-1
is her uncle, whereas on the contrary PW-1 has mentioned in the FIR that he is
the grandfather of the victim. Furthermore, the informant stated that the victim
was a student at Jatiya Vidyalaya School, whereas as PW-1, the informant
stated that the victim was studying at Bannad Madrassa. PW-2 also testified in
her evidence that on the day of the incident she did not attend school as it was
Page No.# 7/18
a Sunday, whereas PW-1 testified in his cross-examination that the victim went
to school on the day of the incident.
12. The learned counsel also laid stress in his argument that the victim’s 10
year old brother was an important witness and he was not examined by the
prosecution.
13. Per contra, learned Amicus Curiae Ms. T. Parashar laid stress in her
argument that the incident took place in the privacy of the victim’s house in
absence of any family members and evidence of eyewitness is not forthcoming.
The victim’s statement is consistent and reliable and she is a sterling witness.
No contradictions could be elicited through the cross-examination of the
witnesses. It is submitted that the victim’s parents work in Tamil Nadu. It is also
submitted that medical report in cases of sexual assault is not required. The
hymen of the victim was also not examined. The opinion of the doctor is not
relevant but the opinion of the Court on the basis of the medical report is
relevant. The evidence of DW-1 about borrowing money has not been
substantiated with documents and thus, the evidence of the defence witnesses
could not dispel the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
Arguments by the Prosecution :-
14. The learned Additional PP laid stress in her argument that the statement
of the victim under 164 CrPC has been exhibited and the victim’s testimony as a
witness is consistent to her statement under Section 164 CrPC. It is further
submitted that in a case of rape or sexual offence, lack of injuries in a medical
report does not exonerate the accused or the appellant. The defence failed to
elicit any material contradictions to rebut the credence of the witnesses. The
presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act operates against the
Page No.# 8/18
appellant. The victim in this case is a sterling witness as her initial statements
have been substantiated by her testimony in the Court.
15. Learned Additional PP has also submitted that the appellant was let off
with punishment for a lesser offence.
Analysis and Decision :-
16. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions at the bar. As
this is a first appeal, the evidence can be re-appreciated.
17. The informant Y deposed as PW-1 that the appellant is a co-villager and
the victim is his granddaughter. On 21.05.2023 at about 2:00 PM, while the
victim was washing the utensils, the appellant on the pretext of getting his
mobile charged, entered into his residence in absence of any of the family
members, except the victim. The appellant grabbed the victim from behind and
gagged her by her mouth, and forcibly brought her inside the house and
committed rape on her. The victim raised alarm and the children who were
playing nearby came. The neighbours also rushed to the informant’s residence
and the appellant fled from the place of occurrence (PO for short).
18. PW-1 further deposed that at the time of the incident, he was in the
market and Hafijur Rahman informed him over phone about the incident. He
immediately returned to his house and found the victim weeping. When he
asked the victim about the reason of her misery, she narrated the entire incident
in detail, describing how the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault on
her. He immediately informed the VDP Secretary about the incident and on his
advice, lodged the FIR with the police at Rowta Police Station. At the time of the
incident the victim was 12 years old and she was a student of Class VII in
Bannad Madrassa. The police seized the birth certificate of the victim on being
Page No.# 9/18
produced by the family. He has proved his signature on the FIR lodged by him
as Ext.P1(1)/PW1 and his signature on the seizure list as Ext.P2(1)/PW.
19. This evidence of PW-1 is substantiated and corroborated by the evidence
of the victim, who also stated that at the time of the incident, she was alone at
him with her younger brother Habijur Rahman, aged about 10 years. At that
time, her younger brother was playing outside the house. She tried to raise
alarm at the time of the incident of rape, but the appellant prevented her by
gagging her by her mouth. When she cried, her younger brother entered into
the house and the appellant immediately fled the scene. After some time, their
neighbour Sahura Khatun came to their house and asked her why she was in
tears and then she narrated the entire incident to Sahura Khatun. After an hour,
her parents returned home and she narrated the entire incident to her parents.
She was produced before the Magistrate for recording her statement under
Section 164 of the CrPC. She has proved her statement under Section 164 of
the CrPC as Ext-P3/PW2. She has proved her signatures as Ext-P3(1)/PW2 and
Ext-P3(2)/PW2 on her statement. The police seized her birth certificate and she
has identified the seizure list as Ext-P2 and her signature as Ext-P2(2)/PW2.
20. The cross-examination of PW-1 reveals that the victim returned home
from the school at about 12:00 noon, whereas the cross-examination of PW-2
reveals that she did not attend school on the day of the incident as it was a
Sunday. It is true that these are contradictions, but these contradictions do not
thwart the evidence as these are minor contradictions and can be safely
brushed aside. However, no contradictions as per Section 145 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (the Evidence Act for short) qua Section 162 of the CrPC
could be elicited through the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW2. The only
contradiction that could be elicited through the cross-examination of PW-1 vis-
Page No.# 10/18
à -vis the cross-examination of the IO, SI Bhagya Deka as PW-8 is that PW-1 did
not mention in his initial statement that at the time of the incident, some
children were playing near his residence and these children came to the PO
after the victim raised alarm. This cross-examination does not negate the
evidence that the appellant committed sexual assault on the victim X.
21. It is true that the victim stated in her cross-examination that her parents
used to stay outside the State in Tamil Nadu for work, but she had not stated
that her parents were in Tamil Nadu at the time of the incident, as argued by
the learned counsel for the appellant.
22. Although the victim was cross-examined in extenso, no contradictions
could be elicited through the vigorous cross-examination of the victim as per
Section 145 of the Evidence Act vis-Ã -vis Section 162 of the CrPC. The evidence
of PW-2 has been corroborated by the evidence of Musst. Saharu Begum. She is
a neighbour and she has testified as PW-3 that on the day of the incident, she
heard a commotion emanating from the PO and she went there and saw the
victim in the courtyard, crying. When enquired, the victim replied that the
appellant came to their house when she was alone at home. In her cross-
examination, she has stated that the victim did not mention that the appellant
had done her wrong.
23. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that the appellant was not
convicted for offence of penetrative sexual assault. He was convicted under a
lower offence. The Trial Court did not find the appellant guilty of the offence of
penetrative sexual assault as the medico-legal report did not reveal any injuries
sustained by the victim on examination of the victim after the incident. The
evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 clearly describes the sequel of events. The
victim girl being a young girl was hesitant to disclose the entire incident to PW-
Page No.# 11/18
3, but the victim’s evidence that PW-3 came to their house immediately after
the incident has been corroborated by the evidence of PW-3. It is also amply
clear that the victim was in tears, which implies the conduct of the appellant.
Why would the victim cry when she was alone with the appellant in her house?
This has been clearly explained by the victim and her father. When there is
clinching evidence that the appellant committed sexual assault on the victim, a
Court is not required to probe for minor contradictions to grant relief to an
accused.
24. The evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW3 has also been substantiated by the
evidence of Z, who deposed as PW-4 that the victim is her granddaughter and
the informant is her husband. She further testified that on the previous year,
when she was not at home, the appellant came to their house and physically
touched the victim girl. After they returned home, she noticed that her
granddaughter was in tears and her granddaughter informed her that the
appellant came to their house and touched her. In her cross-examination, she
testified that the victim also stated that the appellant had not wronged her, but
the victim specifically stated that the appellant touched her.
25. Although PW-4 did not directly implicate that the appellant had outraged
the modesty of the victim, yet the evidence of PW-4 clearly reveals that the
victim was in tears when they reached home and the victim stated that the
appellant came to their house when she was alone at home. Thus, the evidence
of PW-1 that the appellant committed sexual assault on her, cannot be
dismissed on the submission that the grandmother’s evidence does not support
the fact that the appellant had outraged the victim’s modesty. The evidence of
the grandmother of the victim is clear that the victim was in tears at the time of
the incident, which implies that the appellant was alone at home with the victim
Page No.# 12/18
and the appellant was responsible for the victim’s miserable state of mind.
Moreover, PW-4 has stated that the appellant touched the victim. It is
discernible that any rational person could reckon why a victim would cry on
being touched by a predator. On the backdrop of the clinching and cogent
evidence adduced by the sterling witness and her grandfather, the
substantiating evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 cannot be assessed to be
presumption.
26. Similarly, Musst. Rabiya Khatun, co-villager deposed as PW-5 that on the
day of the incident, on the previous year, she heard that the appellant held the
victim’s hand. The victim was about 12-13 years of age at the time of the
incident. However, she testified in her cross-examination that she did not know
in which place the appellant held the victim’s hand. PW-6 was declared a hostile
witness.
27. Md. Abdul Hamid, VDP Secretary, deposed as PW-6 that in the previous
year, the O/C of Rowta PS informed him over phone that the appellant
committed rape on the minor victim and he had accompanied the police to the
PO. This witness was declared a hostile witness and he was cross-examined by
the prosecution.
28. This witness has been cross-examined by the prosecution, after this
witness was declared hostile and she denied that she had stated before the IO
that on the evening of 21.05.2023, he was informed by the informant over
phone that his granddaughter was forcibly raped by the appellant inside their
house in his absence. In his cross-examination by the defence, PW-6 also stated
that he went to the informant’s house to enquire about the matter and he was
informed about the incident by the police. However, he denied any knowledge
about the incident.
Page No.# 13/18
29. Although the prosecution declared this witness as a hostile witness, the
prosecution failed to affirm his initial statement when the IO, PW-8 was
examined. The evidence of PW-6 cannot be effaced from the record as PW-6
has stated in his examination-in-chief that the O/C of Rowta P.S. informed him
over phone that the appellant committed rape on the minor victim X, and he
accompanied the police to the PO. Thus, the fact that an incident of sexual
assault had occurred and X, was the victim, cannot be ignored.
30. The Medical Officer, Dr. Nobojit Hajoari deposed as PW-7 that on
21.05.2023, he was posted at Udalguri Civil Hospital as Sr. M&HO. On that day,
he examined the victim in connection with Rowta P.S. Case No. 101/2023. His
opinion reveals that the victim’s radiological age was between 12-14 years. He
has however stated that there were no signs of external injury and no
spermatozoa was detected on the vaginal smear and USG W/A shows normal
report. He proved his medical report as Ext-P4/PW7 and his signature as Ext-
P4(1)/PW7. Evidence of PW-7 clearly reveals that the victim was below 14 years
of age at the time of the incident.
31. The IO S. I. Bhagya Deka deposed as PW-8 that on 21.05.2023, he was
posted as 2nd Officer at Rowta P.S. and on that day, the informant lodged an
FIR. The O/C registered the case and endorsed him with the investigation. He
embarked upon the investigation. He recorded the statements of the informant
and the victim in the police station and then, he forwarded the victim for
medical examination and also for recording her statement under Section 164
CrPC. He went to the PO, seized the birth certificate of the victim girl and
prepared the sketch map and recorded the statements of the other witnesses.
Then, he searched for the appellant, but could not trace him out. After three
days the appellant surrendered before the police. He recorded his statement
Page No.# 14/18
and arrested him. After conclusion of investigation and on finding sufficient
materials against the appellant, he submitted charge sheet against the appellant
under Section 448/376(c) IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. He proved
his signature on the seizure list as Ext-P2(3)/PW8 and his signature on the
sketch map as Ext-P5(1)/PW8 and his signature on the charge sheet as Ext-
P6(1)/PW8.
32. Although the learned counsel for the appellant has disputed the birth
certificate of the victim being a copy and not an original, the evidence of PW-7
clearly proves that the victim was below 14 years of age and above 12 years of
age. It is also apt to mention that the evidence of the appellant as DW-1 and
the evidence of defence witnesses as DW-2 and DW-3 has failed to repel the
evidence adduced by the prosecution.
33. The appellant as DW-1 stated that on the day of the incident, he went to
the roadside where he met his brother and the informant. Then he demanded
the money lent to the informant’s son by his brother and the informant’s son
refused to repay the loan. DW-1 then apprised that he will take legal help to
recover the money. To avenge his demand, the informant lodged a false case
against him. DW-1 has stressed that he is innocent and a false case has been
slammed against him.
34. Another witness, Most. Sabina Yasmin @ Begum, deposed as DW-2 that
both the parties are known to her. A land dispute is prevalent between both the
parties and a false case has been filed by the informant against the appellant.
She denied any knowledge about any offence of rape. As a VDP secretary, she
was informed that the appellant went to the informant’s house to demand the
money to be returned to his brother. She further stated that she asked the
victim girl about the incident of rape, but the victim girl did not inform anything
Page No.# 15/18
about any offence of rape. When the police came to the village searching for the
appellant, he was found to be missing from the village. Subsequently, after
three days, she took the appellant and handed him over to the police.
35. This evidence of DW-2 and PW-8 clearly reveals the conduct of the
appellant after the incident. Section 8 of the Evidence Act says that the conduct,
motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct of a party is relevant.
The evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 reveals that the informant’s son borrowed
money from the brother of the appellant, whereas DW-3 went a step further
and stated that land and money dispute is prevalent between the appellant and
the informant.
36. The evidence of DW-3, Md Muhajal Ali reveals that a money dispute is
prevalent between the informant and the appellant. If a money dispute is
prevalent between the informant and the appellant, then the dispute will be
between the informant and the appellant and not the brother of the appellant
and the informant’s son. The appellant as DW-1 has stated that the money
dispute was between his brother and the informant’s son, whereas DW-2 and
DW-3 have testified that the money dispute was prevalent between the
appellant and the informant. Both DW-2 and DW-3 deposed in a nonchalant way
about a money dispute existing between the informant and the appellant,
whereas the appellant’s evidence reveals that the money dispute was between
his brother and the informant’s son.
37. It has to be borne in mind that the appellant immediately disappeared
after the incident for three days. DW-2 produced the appellant after three days
before the police.
38. An allegation of sexual assault has been levelled against the appellant by
Page No.# 16/18
a minor girl who was below 14 years of age and thereafter, the appellant
disappeared. Thus, the conduct of the appellant in this case is also relevant. On
this backdrop, the dissimilar evidence of DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 could not dispel
the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, even on the touchstone of
pre-ponderance of probabilities.
39. Although the learned Trial Court has not convicted the appellant under
Section 4 of the POSCO Act, despite clinching evidence of sexual assault against
the appellant, this Court concurs with the decision of the learned Trial Court. A
victim, although a young girl, has failed to describe in what manner the
appellant committed penetrative sexual assault on her to convict him of offence
under Section 4 of the POSCO Act. It is true that the victim is a sterling witness
and her statement under Section 164 CrPC has been substantiated by her
deposition in the Court.
However, the appellant gets a benefit of doubt as the victim has not
specifically described that the appellant had committed penetrative sexual
assault on her. Her grandmother has also stated that the appellant touched her
and PW-5 has also stated that the appellant held her hand. PW-1 has testified
that the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault on his granddaughter,
whereas PW-2, the victim stated that the appellant committed rape on her.
40. It is true that the victim was above 12 years and below 14 years of age at
the time of the incident. It is also true that she may have been unable to
comprehend the type of offence committed on her. She described the offence as
rape before the Court.
41. I find force in the argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
that the Medical Officer’s opinion that no injuries or spermatozoa were detected
Page No.# 17/18
on the private parts of the victim after her examination, does not reflect that no
rape was committed on the victim as the Medical Officer’s opinion has to be
scrutinized by the Court and the Court’s opinion is relevant in offences such as
rape.
42. No infirmity is discernible in the decision of the learned Trial Court.
In view of the foregoing discussions, I am constrained to hold that the
appellant has been correctly held guilty of offence under Section 8 of the
POCSO Act by the learned Trial Court. It would be apt to reiterate that the
victim could not specifically describe how the offence was committed on her due
to her young age, but the victim’s statement and the evidence reveal that the
appellant had committed sexual assault on the victim which has been described
by the victim as rape. It has been correctly held by the learned Trial Court that
the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had
indeed committed sexual assault on the victim. The learned Trial Court has
correctly considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and has
convicted the appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The Court has
correctly and elaborately described how this offence falls under Section 8 of the
POCSO Act and not under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
43. In the wake of the foregoing discussions, this Court is hesitant to interfere
with the decision of the learned Trial Court as there is clinching evidence that
the appellant had committed sexual assault on the victim. The evidence has
been correctly assessed to convict the appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO
Act. This Court also finds force in the argument of the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor that the foundational facts have been proved against the appellant
and the presumption as per Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act operates
against the appellant, who has failed to rebut the presumption under Sections
Page No.# 18/18
29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. The appellant has been correctly convicted for the
offence of house trespass under Section 448 of the IPC as the offence was
committed inside a dwelling house. I therefore, record my concurrence to the
decision of the learned Trial Court.
44. Appeal is hereby dismissed as the appeal is devoid of merits. The period
of detention already undergone by the appellant during investigation or trial is
set off with the custodial sentence.
45. Send back the Trial Court Records.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
