Meghalaya High Court: In a criminal appeal against a decision of the Special Judge (POCSO), wherein the convict/appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 3(a)/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) and under Sections 375(a) and Sections 375(sixthly)/376(2)(U)(n) of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Division Bench of S. Vaidyanathan and W. Diengdoh, JJ. noting the depositions of the minor girl, her parents, house help and medical evidence, held that it was duly established that the convict intoxicated the girl and taking advantage of the same had physical relationship with the minor girl. Hence, the Court upheld the impugned decision.
Factual Matrix
A First Information Report was filed by the minor girl’s parents on 17-04-2015 stating that their daughter was raped on 14-03-2015, when she was 14 years old. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences under Section 3(a)/4 of the POCSO Act. The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence found the convict guilty of the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to undergo twenty years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, five years with fine of Rs.50,000/-, five years with fine of Rs.20,000/-, and seven years with fine of Rs.20,000/- for offences under Section 376(2) IPC, Section 450 IPC, Section 328 IPC and Section 354-B IPC, respectively. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The convict’s counsel submitted that the minor girl and convict were involved in a romantic relationship with each other.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that it was alleged by the prosecution that the convict, in the guise of loving the minor girl had poured some intoxicating substance in the tea which made her unconscious and had aggravated sexual intercourse with the girl, who was a minor at the time of incident, attracting the provisions of Section 4 of the POCSO Act. On perusal of the statement of the minor girl under Section 164 of CrPC, the factum of sexual intercourse was duly established by the prosecution and supported by the statement of their house help under Section 164 of CrPC. The Court on perusal of the medical record, wherein it was established that hymen was not intact and that the age according to dental and X-ray examination was between 14- 16 years of age. The Court stated that people used to say that love is blind, but in this case the convict made the victim girl blind by way of intoxicating her temporarily so as to fulfil his sexual desire/lust.
Regarding the question of reduction in punishment, the Court to consider the same saying that there was a love affair between the convict and the minor girl, owing to the minor girl’s repeated refusal to have a sexual intercourse, the convict mixed some intoxicated element in the tea and made her asleep with part consciousness and thereafter, he had committed the offence of aggravated sexual assault on the victim girl, which is highly condemnable, amounting to betrayal of the girl. Hence, the Court did not find any serious infirmity in the impugned decision.
[Mihkahtngen Sarubai v. State of Meghalaya, 2024 SCC OnLine Megh 595, Decided on: 08-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the appellant: Advocate K.Ch. Gautam and Advocate G.C. Marboh
For the respondent: AAG N.D. Chullai, GA R. Colney
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
