SPECIAL JUDGE (POCSO) :: MORIGAON (Assam) Present

POCSO Case No.06/2020

Page 1 of 48

APPENDIX-12

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE -

CUM- SPECIAL JUDGE (POCSO) :: MORIGAON

(Assam)

Present: Sri A.K. Basfor, A.J.S.

Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge (POCSO)

Date of Judgment:- 21.02.2022

POCSO Case No. 06/2020

Jagiroad P.S. Case No. 473/2019

u/s 376(2)(3) of I.P.C., r/w section 6/9(n) of POCSO Act

COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY

Mr. A. Bishaya,

Learned Special Public Prosecutor

ACCUSED Sri Rupan Deuri @ Babu

S/o –Late Ghatlai @ Khagen Dewri

Village- Jagiroad, Natungaon

P.S : Jagiroad

Dist : Morigaon (Assam)

REPRESENTED BY

Mr. K.C. Mahanta,

Learned Legal Aid Counsel


Page 2 of 48

APPENDIX-13

Date of Offence Before 08 months of lodging of the F.I.R. dated 13.07.2019

Date of F.I.R. 13.07.2019

Date of Charge-sheet 31.08.2019

Date of Framing of Charges

01.02.2020

Date of commencement of evidence

14.02.2020, 27.02.2020, 11.01.2021, 15.02.2021, 26.02.2021, 06.04.2021, 18.08.2021, 28.09.2021.

Date on which judgment is reserved

Does not arise

Date of Judgment

21.02.2022

Date of sentencing Order, if any

21.02.2022


Page 3 of 48

Accused Details

Rank of accused

Name of accused

Date of Arrest

Date of Release On bail

Offences

Charged

with

Whether

Acquitted

Or

convicted

Sentence Imposed

Period of

detention

undergone

during trial

for purpose

of Sec. 428

Cr.P.C.

A1

Rupan Deuri (Rupam Dewri) @ Babu

13.07.2019

Not

released

on bail

376(3) of

I.P.C., r/w

section 6

of POCSO

Act

Convicted

R.I. for

20 years

and to

pay a

fine of

Rs.

20,000/-

u/s

376(3) of

I.P.C. in

default,

R.I. for 6

months

Period of

detention

in jail since

14.07.2019

which shall

be set off

u/s 428 of

Cr.P.C.

against the

period of

sentence


Page 4 of 48

JUDGMENT

PROSECUTION CASE:

1. Prosecution case in brief is that informant, Bipin Ch.

Bordoloi, on 13.07.2019 lodged an F.I.R. at Jagiroad police

Station to the effect that accused Rupan Dewri committed

rape upon his younger sister (name withheld and hereinafter

known or called as prosecutrix or victim), who was then 14

years old as a result of which the victim sister of the accused

became 08 months pregnant and the informant got to know

about the said incident on 13.07.2019. Hence, the case for

taking necessary action.

INVESTIGATION:

2. On receipt of the F.I.R, the O.C. of Jagiroad Police

Station registered the case vide Jagiroad P.S. Case

No.473/2019 u/s 376(2)(3)of I.P.C., r/w section 6 of POCSO

Act.During investigation, the accused Rupan Dewri was

arrested and he was produced before the Court and since

then he has been in judicial custody. The I.O. visited the

place of occurrence; drew the sketch map of the place of

occurrence; recorded the statement of witnesses including

victim and the statement of the victim was also recorded u/s

164 Cr.P.C. The I.O. also seized two original advice slipsof

victim issued by M.G. Model Hospital, Nakhola. The I.O.

collected the medical examination report of victim issued by


Page 5 of 48

Dr. Ruma Dutta of M.G. Model Hospital Nakhola. The victim

was also examined by doctor of Morigaon Civil Hospital and

the I.O. collected the medical report of the victim. However,

on completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge-

sheet against accused Sri Rupan Dewri @ Babu u/s 376(2)(3),

r/w section 6/9(n) of POCSO Act for trial.

3. On appearance of the accused person, he was

produced from judicial custody. The necessary copies were

furnished to the accused person. Learned Advocate, Mr. K.C.

Mahanta has been appointed as Legal Aid Counsel for the

accused to defend his case. After hearing both sides and on

perusal of materials on record, Hon‟ble Sessions Judge -cum-

Special Judge, Morigaon framed charges u/s 376(3) of I.P.C.,

r/w section 6 of POCSO Act against the accused person and

the particulars of charges had been read over and explained

to the accused to which he professed innocent and claimed to

be tried.

TRIAL:

4. During trial, prosecution side examined as many as 8

(eight) witnesses including victim and M.Os. Smti. Bidya

Prabha Bora who is Headmistress of Markungkuchi L.P.

School has been examined as Court witness (C.W.1). On

closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused

person has been recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. which is denial


Page 6 of 48

of the occurrence as alleged. On being asked to enter

defence evidence, the defence declined to adduce any

evidence in his defence. At the end of the trial, the argument

advanced by the learned counsels for both the sides have

been heard at length.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

5. Now, the points for determination in the case are as

follows:

1) Whether the accused Sri Rupan Deuri @ Babu, prior to

7-8 months before the lodging of Ejahar dated 13.07.2019, at

Village- Natungaon under Jagiroad Police Station committed

rape upon the prosecutrix, aged about 16 years, as alleged

and thereby liable to be punished under section 376 (3) of

the Indian Penal Code ?

2) Whether the accused person prior to 7-8 months before

the lodging of Ejahar dated 13.07.2019 at Village- Natungaon

under Jagiroad Police Station committed aggravated

penetrative sexual assault upon the Prosecutrix, aged about

16 years repeatedly,as alleged and, thereby liableto be

punished under section 6 of the POCSO Act?

Discussion, Decision and Reasons Thereof:

6. P.W-1 Bipin Ch. Bordoloi who is informant of this

case deposed in his evidence that on 13.07.2019 locals came

to know from ASHA Worker that Prosecutrix was pregnant


Page 7 of 48

through her brother Rupan Dewri. He deposed that on asking

by villagers, Prosecutrix told them that for the physical sexual

relation by her brother she was pregnant for about 8 months.

P.W-1 stated that Prosecutrix resides with the accused

Rupan, his wife and one younger brother aged about 12

years.P.W-1 deposed that after discussing the matter at

village level, the matter was informed to O.C. of Jagiroad

Police Station. He stated that he had written the F.I.R.

Exhibit-1 is the F.I.R., Exhibit-1(i) is his signature. He

deposed that the police brought the accused and the victim to

police station and during interrogation by police, accused

confessed his guilt of making sexual physical relation with his

sister, i.e., prosecutrix. He deposed that recently he had

heard that Prosecutrix delivered one male child and presently

resides in some shelter home.

7. In his cross-examination, P.W-1 stated that one Mr.

Kalita and Shri Badan Sarma and others have their residence

near the house of accused. He stated that his residence is at

a distance of one furlong from the house of accused. Accused

Rupan is a married person having his wife. He further stated

that 4-5 years back, elder sister of Rupan was married

somewhere at Morigaon. He stated that he has forgotten the

sister‟s name of the accused. He also stated that prosecutrix/

victim sometimes visited her sister‟s house but never stayed

there for long. He also deposed that he had stated the age of


Page 8 of 48

victim on assumption and he has also no document in support

of age of the victim. He denied that while giving statement to

police he had not stated that they came to know about

pregnancy of Prosecutrixthrough ASHA worker. He stated that

on asking by villagers, Prosecutrixtold them that for the

physical sexual relation by her brother she was pregnant and

accused confessed to his guilt. He denied the suggestion that

in F.I.R. he had not mentioned about the delay of 8 months in

informing the matter to police.

8. P.W-2 Sri Putu Konwar deposed in his evidence that

on 13.07.2019 at 1:00 p.m. wife of accused RupanDewri

came to his house and informed him that Prosecutrixwas

pregnant and that she was pregnant through her brother

Rupan Dewri. His landlady Kabita Bordoloi local ASHA Karmi

Pallavi, wife of accused accompanied Prosecutrixto Hospital

where her pregnancy was determined by doctor. He stated

that at the time of incident, Prosecutrixresided with the

accused Rupan, his wife and one younger brother and

parents of Prosecutrix expired long back.

9. In his cross-examination, P.W-2 stated that there are

three residence in between his residence and residence of

accused. He stated that Putul Bora, Biswas Sarkar and Digen

Kalita have their residence in between two houses. He stated

that they may know if any incident happens at the residence


Page 9 of 48

of Rupan. He deposed that prior to taking the victim to

hospital, he did not know about the pregnancy of the victim.

He stated that none has reported him about relation of

accused with his sister. He stated that Rupan is married and

his wife lived with him till filing of this case. He deposed that

mother of Rupan expired two years back and their father

expired long back. He deposed that they never heard any

incident of physical relation between the accused and his

sister before knowing about the pregnancy of victim. He

stated that victim‟s sister Rumi was married at Karbi Anglong.

He deposed that Prosecutrixused to visit her sister‟s (name

withheld) residence and also used to stay there for a month

or two. He deposed that he knows victim‟s sister lived with his

mother-in-law, one child and her husband. He deposed that

Prosecutrix was taken to hospital due to stopping of

her menstrual period. He stated that he did not go to

hospital with the victim. He also stated that he did not ask the

victim/Prosecutrix about the incident.

10. P.W-3 Sri Pallabi Bordoloi who is ASHA worker

deposed that on 13.07.2019 while she went to Nakhola

Hospital with patient, she met Bandana Dewri, wife of

accused Rupan Dewri, who came there with Prosecutrix.

Bandana told her that due to stoppage of menstrual

period of Prosecutrix, she brought her for medical check-

up. She deposed that when she was taken to Doctor Ruma


Page 10 of 48

Dutta and on knowing that Prosecutrixhails from her village,

Dr. Ruma Dutta asked her to conduct pregnancy test on

prosecutrix and the result was positive for pregnancy. At that

time Prosecutrix was unmarried and aged about 14-15 years.

On asking by Bandana Dewri as to from whom she became

pregnant, in our presence, prosecutrixtold her that she

became pregnant through her brother Rupan Dewri. She

stated that parents of prosecutrixexpired long back.

11. In her cross-examination, P.W-3 stated that her

residence is at about a distance of 600 meter from the

residence of accused, and there are 12 houses in between

two houses. She stated that Bandana was also pregnant at

that time and she (P.W-3) used to take care of her. She

stated that she used to visit her residence. On her visit to the

house of Bandana, she did not find her in her house as

prosecutrixused to frequently go to other houses. She

deposed that while giving statement to police she had not

stated that “Bandana told her that due to stoppage of

menstrual period of Prosecutrix/victim, she brought her for

medical check-up; that Dr. Ruma Dutta asked me to conduct

pregnancy test through Prega News kit; that on this, she had

conducted the pregnancy test on victim and the result was

found positive for pregnancy.” She stated that prior to taking

the victim to hospital, she did not know about the pregnancy

of the victim. Prosecutrix personally did not report her about


Page 11 of 48

physical relation by her brother. She also stated that she

never asked about the allegations. She also stated that Rupan

is married and his wife lived with him till filing of this case.

On being re-examined by prosecution, she deposed that

before going for test through pregnancy kit, Dr. Ruma Dutta

also told her that Prosecutrixhad pregnancy symptoms and on

this she was asked to go pregnancy test through the kit.

On her further cross-examination, she stated that

pregnancy kit are normally used by ASHA worker and

doctors to confirm the report. She stated that she was

verbally asked by doctor to conduct the pregnancy test.

12. P.W-4 Smt. Kabita Bordoloi stated in her evidence

that on 13.07.2019 while she went to Nakhola Hospital for

her own check-up, she met Bandana Dewri, wife of accused

Rupan Dewri and prosecutrix in the hospital. She stated that

on asking why they came there, Bandana told her that due

to stoppage of menstrual period of prosecutrix, she

brought her for medical check-up and that prosecutrix

was pregnant. She stated that on asking the prosecutrix, she

told her that she was pregnant through her brother Rupan

Dewri. She stated that father of prosecutrix expired long back

and mother of prosecutrix expired about 4-5 years back.

13. In her cross-examination P.W-4 stated that her

residence is on the other side of the road of the house of


Page 12 of 48

accused. She also stated that several persons have their

residence near their houses. She deposed that she has

forgotten the date of going to hospital. She also deposed that

prior to taking the victim to hospital, she met the victim

frequently but she never reported her pregnancy or stopping

of menstrual period. P.W-4 also stated that the victim did not

tell her about the period of her pregnancy. She also deposed

that she was not present with prosecutrix while she was

examined by doctor. She denied the suggestion that Bandana

never told her that due to stoppage of menstrual period of

prosecutrix, she brought her for medical check-up and that

prosecutrix was pregnant; that prosecutrix never told her that

she was pregnant through her brother Rupan Dewri. P.W-4

further deposed that she has no personal knowledge about

the incident of pregnancy of prosecutrix.

14. P.W-5, who is alleged victim/prosecutrix of the

case deposed that accused Rupan Deuri is her own elder

brother. She deposed that her present age is 15-16 years.

She stated that she read upto class V at Markungkuchi LP

School and might left the school in the year 2017. She

deposed that she had forgotten her date of birth. She stated

that her parents expired prior to the incident and she has two

brothers and one sister. She deposed that after death of

her parents and prior to filing of this case, she used to

reside at her paternal home with her elder brother


Page 13 of 48

Rupan Deori, his wife Bandana Deori, another brother

Dulu Bordoloi. Her elder sister Rumi Deori was married in

the year 2014-2015. She further deposed that prior to filing

of this case, while her sister-in-law Bandana went to

her paternal home leaving her in her house with her

two brothers, her youngest brother was at his friend’s

house. She was alone in the house at night hours, her

elder brother Rupan came to her room and committed

misdeed, i.e., rape on her. She stated that she did not

inform this incident to others and even after return of

her sister-in-law, out of fear, she did not inform her

about the incident. She deposed that after 4-5 days, her

brother Rupan Deori again made physical relation

with her. Thereafter, Rupan used to establish physical

relation with her on several occasions. She deposed that

after few days when she went to the house of her

elder sister Rumi Deori, she informed her that for last

few months her menstrual period stopped and

thereafter her sister took her to hospital but without

consulting any doctor, they returned and her sister gave her

some local medicine. She also stated that she informed her

sister that Rupan made physical relation with her on

several occasions. She further deposed that on the day of

return from the house of her sister, when she

informed her about some disturbance at her abdomen,

her sister also came with her and informed the


Page 14 of 48

incident to her sister in law Bandana and asked her to

take her for medical check-up. She stated that

immediately on this, Bandana went to her paternal home and

after return, Bandana took her to Nakhola Hospital and

along with them two local women and one nurse went

to hospital. She stated that she had undergone medical

check-up and doctor of the hospital confirmed that

she was pregnant of about 8 months and at that time

she was unmarried. She deposed that on knowing her

pregnancy, she returned to her home but in the evening

police came to her residence and brought her to Jagiroad

Police Station and police initially kept her at Ujjala Home. She

stated that she was also brought to Court for giving her

statement and gave her statement before Magistrate in

similar lines. She deposed that during her stay at State Home

for Women at Nagaon, the foetus died. She stated that

presently she is staying at State Home for women at

Nagaon and on that day she was brought to the Court by

women police party from the said home.

15. In her cross-examination she deposed that during her

schooling she might have failed twice in primary classes. She

stated that police did not collect her School or Birth certificate

from her. She stated that the F.I.R. was lodged by villagers

but she cannot say their names. She deposed that she did not

ask any of the villagers to file any case for the incident and


Page 15 of 48

they filed this without taking her consent. She stated that she

does not know when her father expired, and her mother

expired in the year 2017. She deposed that Rupan performed

marriage after the death of her mother. At the time of

incident of rape with her, Rupan had no issue and in their

house there are two rooms and she normally used to sleep in

the room used by Rupan and his wife since long. She denied

the suggestion that while giving statement in Court, she had

not stated that when she went to the house of elder sister

Rumi Deori, she informed her that for last few months her

menstrual period stopped and thereafter her sister took her to

hospital but without consulting any doctor, they returned and

her sister gave her some local medicine and she had also

informed her sister that Rupan made physical relation with

her on several occasions. She stated that she has forgotten

the date on which she went to hospital or the dates on which

Rupan had made physical relation with her. She also stated

that while giving statement to police or in Court she had not

stated that “on the first of committing rape on her, her

younger brother Dulu was not present in the house.” She

further stated that while giving statement to police or in Court

she had not stated that her sister in law went to her paternal

home on the day of first incident or that she felt some

disturbance at her abdomen. She stated that near to their

residence Kalita Mama, Saikia, Badan Sarma have their

residences and after that incident she did not inform to any of


Page 16 of 48

the neighbours. She denied the suggestion that her elder

brother Rupan Deori did not commit any rape on her or never

established any physical relation with her.

16. CW-1 Smti. Bidya Prabha Bora deposed that as per

school admission register of the year 2011, on 21.01.2011,

Prosecutrix D/o- Late Khagen Deuri of Village- Natun Gaon,

Police Station- Jagiroad, took admission in class-I. As per

Admission Register, on the date of admission, age of

prosecutrix was recorded as 05.04.2004. She deposed

that from the school record it appears that she read up to

class-V in their school till November 2016 and she dropped

her exams in December 2016. She deposed that they

record the age of the child on the basis of Birth

Certificate or the date mentioned by the guardians of

the ward. Exhibit-X is the School Admission Register

of Markungkuchi LP School starting from the year 2003 till

2013. Exhibit- X(1) is the admission details of the year 2011

in class-I. Exhibit-X(2) is the relevant entry showing name of

Prosecutrix and her date of birth as 05.04.2004. Exhibit-Y is

the School Attendance Register for the year 2016. Exhibit-

Y(1) is the relevant entry of the year 2016 showing her

attendance till November 2016 which are all exhibited in

original.

Her cross by prosecution has been declined.


Page 17 of 48

17. C.W-1 in her cross-examination by defence stated that

the prosecutrix took admission in the year 2011 and Smti.

Bimala Patar was then Head-Mistress of their school, and

formalities were completed by her (i.e., Head-Mistress). She

stated that she has no personal knowledge about admission

of prosecutrix. She stated that at the time of admission in

their school, they asked for birth certificate. She also stated

that they did not mention in writing about non-filing of Birth

Certificate by the guardian. As per record, she did not find

the Birth Certificate of the prosecutrix in their school

documents. She also stated that the Birth date of the

prosecutrix might be mentioned in the Admission Register on

oral declaration of her guardians. She also stated that police

did not collect any record of admission of the prosecutrix

from their school in the year 2011 or regarding her study in

their school till 2016.

18. P.W-6 Dr. Ruma Dutta who is M.O. deposed that on

13.07.2019 while she was working as Medical & Health

Officer-I at MG Model Hospital, Nakhola, Jagiroad, she

examined the prosecutrix. She deposed that the patient came

with h/o- Amenorrhea, 8 month since December, 2018. Upon

clinical examination she found as follows-

Urine Pregnancy Test was done- Positive.

O/Examination uterus p/a uterus- around 28/30

weeks,


Page 18 of 48

FHR- positive, 120/min (Fetal heart rate)

Patient was advised for ultrasound of abdomen and pelvic,

pregnancy USG;

Blood routine, urine routine, SR cretnine, blood groups & RH

type, serelogy (HIV, HsAg, HCV, VDRL). BL urea, RBS.

She deposed that she prescribed her few tablets –e.g.,

Iron tab, calcium tab, Antacid gel and she referred the patient

to Morigaon Civil Hospital, Morigaon/GMCH for further

treatment.

Exhibit- 2 is her report given on the back side of

police requisition. Exhibit-2 (i) is her signature.

19. In her cross-examination, she deposed that

Prosecutrix came with one ASHA worker and one of

her relative. She deposed that she did not examine her on

police requisition. She deposed that she issued one advice slip

to the patient but same was not seen in the case record. She

also deposed that in her report she had not mentioned the

age of the patient. She stated that pregnancy test was done

by some hospital staff and she had also not enclosed the

pregnancy test kit report. She denied the suggestion that her

report is not authentic.

20. P.W-7 S.I. Pranjal Chetia, who is Investigating

Officer of the case, deposed that on 13.07.2019 when he

was working as Town S.I. in Jagiroad Police Station,


Page 19 of 48

informant Bipin Chandra Bordoloi lodged an F.I.R. at Jagiroad

P.S. to the effect that accused Rupan Dewri committed rape

upon her own younger sister, i.e., prosecutrix, who was then

14 years old as a result of which the victim became pregnant

of 8 months. The O.C. registered the F.I.R. vide Jagiroad P.S.

Case No. 473/2019 u/s 376(2)(3) of I.P.C., r/w section 6/9 of

POCSO Act. He deposed that the O.C. entrusted him with the

investigation of the case. He further deposed that on that day

he found the informant and the victim at the police station

and hence he recorded their statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. The

victim handed over two medical slips which were seized by

him at the police station. On the same day he forwarded the

victim along with woman constable to MGM Hospital at

Jagiroad for her medical examination. On the next day, he

forwarded the victim to Morigaon Civil Hospital for further

treatment and examination, and thereafter he sent her to

Morigaon Court for getting her statement recorded u/s 164 of

Cr.P.C. by a Judicial Magistrate. Accordingly, her statement

was recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. He stated that he visited the

place of occurrence, drew the sketch map of the place of

occurrence and recorded the statement of other witnesses‟

u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. He deposed that he also arrested accused

Rupan Dewri after necessary formalities and forwarded him to

Court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation,

he submitted charge-sheet u/s 376(2)(3) of I.P.C., r/w

section 6/9 of POCSO Act against the accused Rupan Dewri.


Page 20 of 48

Exhibit- 3 is the sketch map of place of occurrence and

Exhibit- 3(1) is his signature. Exhibit- 4 is the charge-

sheet and Exhibit- 4(1) is his signature.

21. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not

mentioned in the case diary the distance between the

residence of informant and the accused person. He also

stated that he had not mentioned the number of dwelling

houses situated between the house of informant and accused.

He also stated that he did not record the statement of Digen

Kalita, Biswa Sarkar, Moitreyee Bordoloi and Bolen Sharma

whose names are mentioned in the sketch map where he also

put his short signature in the sketch map. He did not send the

seized Advice slips of the victim to the Court along with the

charge-sheet. He also deposed that the victim on the day of

lodging the F.I.R. herself attended medical treatment and

thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant. He stated

that he did not seize the bed of the accused. He deposed that

during his investigationhe did not find Birth Certificate or

School certificate of victim available in the house of victim. He

also deposed that he did not collect School certificate of the

victim from her school nor he made any enquiry in her school.

He also deposed that he did not seize the wearing cloth or

garments of the victim. He further deposed that the victim

delivered a male child but seven days of the born of baby, he

died. He stated that he did not inform about the death of


Page 21 of 48

baby to the Court because the baby died after submission of

his charge-sheet in the Court.

He further deposed that witness Bipin Bordoloi

(complainant) in his previous statement had not stated before

him that they came to know about pregnancy of Prosecutrix

through ASHA worker. He denied the suggestion that he did

not investigate the case properly.

22. P.W-8 (M.O.) Dr. Madhusmita Baruah Deka

deposed that on 14.07.2019 when she was working as Senior

Medical Officer at Morigaon Civil Hospital, she examined the

prosecutrix of Village- Natungaon, Jagiroad, Dist.- Morigaon,

Assam, in connection with Jagiroad P.S. Case No.473/2019

u/s 376(2)(3) of I.P.C., r/w section 6/9 of POCSO Act. The

patient was escorted by WPC/87- Binita Bordoloi and female

attendant Binu Das.

The history as stated by the patient is that she had

been raped by her brother Rupan Dewri 08 months back.

After examining the patient, she found –

1) Identification Mark- Black mole on her abdomen.

2) Her age was found between 14 to 16 years as

per growth of dentition and other physical

growth factor which was observed by her.

3) No sign of recent forceful sexual intercourse at the

time of examination.


Page 22 of 48

4) No violent mark was found on her body or on her

private parts.

5) As per Ultrasound Report (USG), the patient

was found pregnant of 30 weeks inside the

intrauterine on 16.07.2019.

Exhibit-3 is the medical examination report and

Exhibit-3(1) is her signature.

23. In her cross-examination, she deposed that she was

attached at Morigaon Civil Hospital in the department of Eye.

But she was entrusted in other departments also including

examination of rape victim. She stated that she had not

mentioned in Exhibit-3 the time or hour of examination of the

victim and also in the Ultrasound Report (USG) the age of

patient/victim, OPD number and by whom referred are not

mentioned. She deposed that she had forgotten whether the

patient or her attendant showed her any medical slip of

Nakhola State Dispensary issued in connection with medical

examination of the patient.

24. These are the evidence on record.

Appreciation of Evidence, Argument & Law

25. The learned Special Public Prosecutor during his

argument has submitted that the evidence of P.Ws have

clearly established that the accused committed penetrative


Page 23 of 48

sexual assault upon the victim as a result of which she

became pregnant and at that time she was minor below 18

years of age. It is further argued that the evidence of victim

is also supported by medical evidence and her tender age is

also proved by C.W-1 and hence the accused is found guilty

of the offence punishable under section 376(3) of I.P.C., r/w

section 6 of POCSO Act and hence liable to be severely

punished. So far contradiction and omission in the cross-

examination of witnesses including victim, it is argued that-

there is no major contradiction or vital omission in the

evidence of the witnesses including victim, and the defence

has failed to rebut the truthful evidence of the P.Ws including

C.W-1.

26. Per contra, the learned defence counsel during his

argument has submitted that the allegation of this case

against the accused person is false and not believable

because accused is own brother of the victim; there is no

clear evidence in respect of the age of the victim; the

neighbours of the victim were not listed as witness in the

case nor they are examined as P.Ws in the case. It is strongly

argued that the F.I.R. was lodged without the knowledge and

consent of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix admitted that

she does not know who lodged the F.I.R. It is also submitted

that the F.I.R. had been lodged after eight (8) months of

alleged incident and there is no explanation of delay in


Page 24 of 48

lodging the F.I.R. nor there is any valid ground to justify the

delay. It is strenuously argued that DNA test of victim and her

baby with the accused were not done and the entire case is

thus suspicious also because of the fact that the victim used

to visit the house of her married sister and her husband, i.e.,

her (victim‟s) brother-in-law. It is thus submitted that the

accused is entitled to be acquitted from the case.

27. I have considered the rival submissions of both sides. I

have also scrutinized the evidence on record including the law

relevant to the issue in hand.

28. Now, let me decide whether the prosecutrix was

below 16 years of age at the relevant time of

occurrence ?

Or

Whether the prosecutrix is minor as per provision

of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012 ?

29. P.W.8 after examining the victim on 14-07-2019

observed that the age of the victim was found between 14 to

16 years as per growth of dentition and other physical growth

factor. It is pertinent to mention here that in the case of Ram

Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath Vs. State of Assam, reported


Page 25 of 48

in AIR 2001 SC 2231, the Hon‟ble Apex Court of India has

observed as follows:

“It is well settled that it is neither feasible nor

desirable to lay down an abstract formula to

determine the age of a person. The date of birth

is to be determined on the basis of material on

record and on appreciation of evidence adduced

by the parties. The Medical evidence as to the

age of a person, though a very useful guiding

factor, is not conclusive and has to be considered

along with other cogent evidence. “

Thus, it is seen from the above observations that

medical opinion as to the age of a person is not always

conclusive and has to be considered along with other cogent

evidence.

30. In the present case, the F.I.R. dated 13.07.2019

speaks that the victim was 14 years old at the relevant time

of occurrence. The victim in her statement recorded on

14.07.2019 u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. claimed her age as 16 years.

The evidence of doctor, i.e., P.W-8 says that the age of the

victim was found between 14 -16 years. However, C.W-1 in

her evidence clearly stated that as per School Admission

Register, i.e., Exhibit- X (1) the date of birth of victim

was recorded as 05.04.2004. The relevant entries

showing the name of victim and her date of birth has been


Page 26 of 48

marked as Exhibit- X (2) which is proved and which remains

unrebutted. Be it also mentioned that there is no better

evidence to rebut the age of the victim or to rebut the entry

of date of birth in the School Admission Register of the victim.

Now, it is pertinent to mention that the victim on 13.07.2019

was examined by doctor (P.W-6) of M.G. Hospital, Nakhola,

Jagiroad who after clinical examination found that the result

of urine pregnancy test was positive. Further, on 14.07.2019

the victim got examined by doctor, i.e., P.W-8 at Morigaon

Civil Hospital who stated that as per Ultra Sound report of

victim, she was found pregnant of 30 weeks inside the

intrauterine on 16.07.2019. So, it clearly appears to me that

on 16.07.2019 the victim was 7 months (approximately)

pregnant. It means 7 months prior to lodging of the F.I.R. on

13.07.2019, the victim conceived, i.e., approximately in the

month of January, 2019 she conceived. But simultaneously it

is most pertinent to mention that the victim in her evidence

categorically stated that the accused used to establish

physical relation with her on several occasions. It means the

incident took place prior to January 2019. She was born on

05.04.2004. Thus, calculating from the period of

incident, it appears to me that at the relevant time of

incident she was around 14 years 8 months old, i.e.,

below 16 years of age. As per section 2(d) of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012


Page 27 of 48

“child” means any person below the age of 18 years

save as provided otherwise.

31. From the above observation I am of the considered

view and constrained to hold that the victim was below 16

years of age and thus child at the relevant time of incident.

32. Now, before proceeding further, it is important to point

out here that in a case of sexual assault, the evidence of

victim alone is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the

accused. Even corroboration is only a rule of prudence and

not of law. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs

Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 51,

Hon’ble Apex Court of India had observed as follows:

“By now it is settled that the testimony of a victim in

cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are

compelling reasons which necessitate looking for

corroboration of a statement, the Court should find no

difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual

assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her

testimony has to inspire confidence. Seeking

corroboration to a statement before relying upon the

same as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to

adding insult to injury. The deposition of the prosecutrix

has, thus, to be taken as a whole. Needless to reiterate

that the victim of rape is not an accomplice and her


Page 28 of 48

evidence can be acted upon without corroboration. She

stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness does.”

33. In the present case it appears from the evidence of

prosecutrix that at first when wife of accused went to her

paternal home, her younger brother was at his friend‟s house

and she and her elder brother Rupan, i.e., the accused were

at home at night hours and then the accused came to her

room and committed rape upon her. She could not inform

about the said incident to others even after return of her

sister-in-law, i.e., wife of accused out of fear. After 4-5 days

the accused again made physical relation with her and

thereafter he used to establish physical relation with her on

several occasions as a result of which she ultimately

conceived for which her menstrual period stopped. She stated

that she could not inform the matters to others out of fear

which is very natural because at that relevant time she was

around 14 years old and in such a tender age generally no

sister of our Indian society is supposed to disclose about such

shameful incident of rape which is committed by her own

elder brother till the situation expose itself or till her personal

health and nature‟s order compelled her to disclose about the

incident. As such it is seen that when her menstrual period

stopped she informed her sister about the said incident.

However, when the victim informed about some disturbance

in her abdomen, she brought her (victim) and informed the


Page 29 of 48

matter to the wife of accused who took her to Nakhola

Hospital, Jagiroad for medical check-up along with two local

women and one nurse. P.W-4 stated that she met Bandana

Dewri, wife of accused Rupan Dewri and prosecutrix in the

said hospital and she got to know from Bandana Dewri that

due to stoppage of menstrual period of prosecutrix, she

brought her for medical check-up. Further, P.W-3 who is

ASHA worker also stated that on 13.07.2019 she found

Bandana Dewri and the prosecutrix at Nakhola Hospital and

after conducting pregnancy test of prosecutrix, as asked by

Dr. Ruma Dutta (P.W-6) her result was found positive for

pregnancy. P.W-6 also stated that on 13.07.2019 urine

pregnancy test of prosecutrix was done which was positive

and on examination uterus p/a uterus- around 28/30 weeks.

That is to say that the prosecutrix was then carrying and

hence she was found pregnant. Further, P.W-8 also examined

the prosecutrix at Morigaon Civil Hospital on 14.07.2019 and

she stated that as per ultra sound report, the prosecutrix was

found pregnant of 30 weeks inside the intrauterine on

16.07.2019. The medical examination report, i.e., Exhibit-3

was also proved by P.W-8. From the evidence of P.W-1 it

reveals that on 13.07.2019 when the local people came to

know from ASHA worker that prosecutrix was pregnant

through her brother Rupan Dewri, villagers asked the

prosecutrix who then told them that for physical sexual

relation by her brother she was pregnant for 8 months. So


Page 30 of 48

after discussing the matter at village level P.W-1 lodged the

F.I.R.

34. From the above evidence of P.Ws it clearly appears to

me that the evidence of prosecutrix is fully believable as the

same is also corroborated and supported by other witnesses

and her pregnancy is also proved by the evidence of doctors,

i.e., P.W-6 and P.W-8. Such evidence could not rebutted by

the defence nor is found doubtful rather I have found a ring

of truth in the evidence of P.Ws which clearly proves the guilt

of the accused person.

35. The learned defence counsel during his argument

pointed out that since the victim used to visit the house of her

married elder sister and also used to go to others‟ house, so,

the accused person cannot be blamed for her pregnancy. It is

also submitted that birth of baby of the victim or death of the

baby has not been proved by the prosecution as there is no

documentary evidence on record. But, I am with respectful

disagreement with the learned defence counsel because there

is no any evidence on record to sustain the argument. Every

girl or women has liberty to visit their relatives‟ house or to

pay social visit and for that a culprit who actually committed

the offence of rape cannot be exonerated nor the same can

be a ground of his acquittal when his guilt is proved by

cogent and convincing evidence as found in the present case


Page 31 of 48

in hand. So far birth of foetus of victim is concerned, the

victim stated that during her stay at State Home for Women

at Nagaon, the foetus died. The I.O. (P.W-7) in his cross-

examination also made it clear that the victim delivered a

male child but after 7 days of the born of baby he died and

he could not inform the Court about the death of baby

because the baby died after submission of his charge-sheet in

the Court. Of late, the I.O. could have informed the Court by

way of additional charge-sheet as provided under section 173

(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, in my

considered view, such irregularity on the part of the I.O.

cannot vitiate the prosecution case nor the same can cast any

doubt on the prosecution case. It is also because of the fact

that minor discrepancy or irregularity in a criminal case is very

natural but that cannot be a sole ground to rebut the

prosecution case which has a ring of truth and which is

proved by cogent and convincing evidence.

36. Now, I would further add that in the present case, a

statutory presumption would operate in favour of prosecution.

Section 29 of the POCSO Act , 2012 provides as follows:

“Where a person is prosecuted for

committing or abetting or attempting to

commit any offence under sections 3,5,7

and 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall

presume, that such person has committed


Page 32 of 48

or abetted or attempted to commit the

offence, as the case may be unless the

contrary is proved.”

37. Upon full appraisal of evidence on record coupled with

my reasons made herein above, I am constrained to hold that

prosecution has succeeded to prove that accused Rupan

Deuri had been repeatedly committed penetrative sexual

assault upon the prosecutrix who is his own younger sister

and made her pregnant.

38. So far lodging the F.I.R by P.W.1 and without the

knowledge or without consent of victim (P.W.5) is concerned,

I would say that it reveals from the evidence of P.W.1 that he

having got to know about the incident of physical sexual

relation by the accused with the victim resulting in her

pregnancy and after discussing the matter in village level, he

wrote and lodged the F.I.R (Ext.1) at Jagiroad Police Station.

Now, I would say that Sub-section (1) of section 19 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (in short,

POCSO) Act, 2012deals with reporting of offences

which is as under-

Section 19 (1): Notwithstanding anything

contained in the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), any person


Page 33 of 48

(including the child), who has apprehension

that an offence under this Act is likely to be

committed or has knowledge that such an

offence has been committed, he shall

provide such information to,-

(a) the Special Juvenile Police Unit ; or

(b) the local police.

Be it also mentioned that section 21 of the POCSO

Act, 2012 provides punishment for failure to report the

commission of an offence under the said Act or fails to record

such offence.

39. So, on bare perusal of the provision of sub-section (1)

of section 19 of the POCSO Act, it is crystal clear that P.W.1

had rightly lodged the FIR and thereby had complied with the

provision of section 19 (1) of the POCSO Act, 2012.

40. Now, so far delay in lodging of the FIR is concerned, I

would say that the complainant (P.W.1) got to know about

the incident on 13-07-2019 and on that day he lodged the

FIR at Jagiroad police station. So, there is no fault or delay in

lodging the FIR by P.W.1. But so far date of occurrence and

date of lodgment of FIR is concerned, I would say that

prosecutrix was in fear after the incident as stated by her. At

that time she was a young girl of tender age lacking lots of

maturity surrounded by fear due to the rape committed by


Page 34 of 48

her own brother which also naturally prevents a sister of our

society to go to police station to lodge an Ejahar soon after

the incident and she even did not inform to others about the

incident due to her fear in mind and the matter was also

shameful. So, a prompt F.I.R. by her cannot be expected and

since at that relevant time no other people was made known

to the incident, so none was there to lodge the F.I.R. But

when the situation ripened due to stoppage of her menstrual

or when some disturbance was felt in her abdomen, the

matter exposed to the village level, as discussed herein

above, and on that very day, i.e., on 13.07.2019 P.W-1

lodged the F.I.R. forthwith. So, there is no delay on his part

in lodging the F.I.R. But if any delay is caused from the time

of first incident the same is found to have carried reasonable

explanation which is sustainable in our society, andthe same

cannot damage the prosecution case or cannot be the sole

ground to cast shadow in the prosecution case because on

close scrutiny of the evidence, I have found that there is no

fabrication or concoction in lodging the case. Now, I would

further say that it was held in Sahebrao Vs State (2006) 9

SCC 794 – that delay in filing FIR by itself cannot be a

ground to doubt the prosecution case and discarded.

41. Further, in the case of Ram Jag & Ors. vs The State

of U.P. (AIR) 1974 SC 606 the position was explained that

whether the delay is so long as to throw a cloud of

suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution case must


Page 35 of 48

depend upon a variety of factors which would vary

from case to case. Even a long delay can be condoned

if the witnesses have no motive for implicating the

accused and/or when plausible explanation offered

for the same.On the other hand, prompt filing of the

report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the

truthfulness or authenticity of the version of the

prosecution. (This case law has also been reiterated by the

Hon'ble Apex Court of India which is reported in 2007 AIAR

(Criminal) 792, in para – 8). So, I am with respectful

disagreement with the learned defence counsel regarding the

delay in lodging the F.I.R. and hence the same cannot give

benefit to the accused.

42. So far contradiction and/or omission in the evidence of

P.W.1, P.W.3, and P.W.5 are concerned I would say that I

have carefully and closely scrutinized the evidence of the said

witnesses together with the entire evidence on record and I

have found that the contradiction and omission raised by the

defence are not major contradiction or omission rather I have

found ring of truth in the evidence of the P.Ws. as their

evidence is supported by medical evidence and unrebuttable

evidence of the prosecutrix. However, I would say that an

attempt was made to prove such contradiction through the

I.O., but defence side has failed to confirm the contradiction

or omission raised in the cross examination of P.W.3 and

P.W.5 through I.O. as per law i.e., as provided under section


Page 36 of 48

145 of Evidence Act. So, far contradiction of P.W.1 that

„they came to know about the pregnancy of prosecutrix

through ASHA worker‟ is concerned, I would say that the

contradiction which is proved by the I.O. is minor

contradiction and not fatal to the prosecution case. In this

regard, I would like to highlight that in the case of State of

Uttar Pradesh Vs. Krishna Master and others reported

in (2010) 12 SCC 324 (which is also followed by Hon‟ble

Gauhati High Court in Crl. A./205/2019 decided on 13-09-

2021), the Hon‟ble Apex Court of India observed that the

Court should read evidence as a whole and on such reading if

it appears to have ring of truth, then the discrepancies,

inconsistencies, infirmities or deficiencies of minor nature not

touching upon the core of the case can be ignored. Further,

Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Crl. A./205/2019

(Abdul Kadir and 4 Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Anr.

decided on 13-09-2021), in Para 49 held as follows:-

“49. In so far as the omissions and discrepancies

in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses are

concerned, law is well settled, by means of long

line of judicial pronouncements, that minor

contradiction and discrepancies in the testimony

of witnesses would not have a fatal bearing in

prosecution case unless the same goes into the

root of the matter. In the case of Ramappa

Halappa Pujar & others (Supra) the Hon’ble


Page 37 of 48

Supreme Court has observed that there can be

some contradictions in the deposition of

witnesses since minor variations from their

earlier statements are but natural. Again, in the

case of Mustak alias Kanio Ahmed Shaikh (Supra)

the Supreme Court has observed that minor

discrepancies, if any, is to be ignored. “

43. So far non-examination of other witnesses of the

case, as argued by the learned defence counsel, is concerned,

at first I would say that the incident took place within the four

wall where except victim and accused none was present. So,

victim is the only eye witness of the incident and her evidence

is thus most vital to the case than any other witness. Now, I

would say that in this case the evidence of victim has

appeared sufficient and believable to convict the accused u/s

376 (3) of I.P.C. and u/s 6 of POCSO Act. However, I would

say that it is settled law that no particular number of

witnesses is required for proving a certain fact. It is the

quality and not the quantity of the witnesses that matters. It

was held in AIR 2016 SC 4486 that - “Evidence is

weighed and not counted. Evidence of even a single

eye witness, truthful, consistent and inspiring

confidence is sufficient for maintaining conviction. It

is not necessary that all those persons who were

present at the spot must be examined by the


Page 38 of 48

prosecution in order to prove guilt of the accused.

Having examined all the witnesses, even if other

persons present nearby not examined, the evidence of

eye witness cannot be discarded.”

44. I would further say that non examination of a particular

witness would not affect the prosecution case when the

witness so examined withstood the cross examination. Be it

also mentioned that Section 134 of Evidence Act lays

down that – No particular number of witnesses shall

in any case be required for the proof of any fact.

45. In the result and for the reasons and discussions made

herein above, I have no hesitation in my mind in holding that

the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against

accused Rupan Deuri. He is thus, found guilty of the offences

punishable under section 376(3) of I.P.C. and he is found

guilty of the offence under section 5(j) (ii) as well as under

section 5(l) and 5(n) of POCSO Act, 2012 and such offences

under section 5 are punishable under section 6 of the POCSO

Act, 2012 and convicted accordingly.

46. I would fail in my duty if I do not make a mention of

the fact that there was an irregularity while framing the


Page 39 of 48

charge in this case. The charge framed under section 376(3)

of IPC wherein the age of the victim at the relevant time of

occurrence had been shown or mentioned as “aged about 16

years” in the Charge Form whereas the age of the victim

must be then “below 16 years of age” as provided under sub-

section(3) of section 376 of I.P.C. On careful perusal of this

aspect, I am of the considered view that the accused person

facing the trial was well aware of the charge brought against

him as section 376(3) of I.P.C provides punishment for

committing rape on a woman under 16 years of age. So,

having considered the provision of section 215 and

section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am of

the firm view that the said irregularity has not

occasioned a failure of justice and so, inconsequential

in nature.

47. Since, the offence under section 376(3) of I.P.C. and

the offence under section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 both are

punishable with imprisonment for life, the provision of

section360 of Cr.P.C. or the provisions of Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958 cannot be applicable.

HEARING ON QUESTION OF SENTENCE

48. It would not be out of place to mention here that

section 42 of the POCSO Act, 2012 provides alternate

punishment which is reproduced as under:


Page 40 of 48

“42. Where an act or omission constitutes

an offence punishable under this Act and

also under sections 166-A, 354-A, 354-B,

354-C, 354-D, 370, 370-A, 375, 376, 376-

A, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 376-E or section

509 of the Indian Penal Code, then,

notwithstanding anything contained in

any law for the time being in force, the

offender found guilty of such offence shall

be liable to punishment under this Act or

under the Indian Penal Code as provides

for punishment which is greater in

degree.”

49. Now, it is seen that the punishment provided under

sub-section (3) of section 376 of Indian Penal Code (inserted

by Act 22 of 2018, section 4 (c) (w.e.f. 21.04.2018)) is

rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than

20 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life,

which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that

person‟s natural life and shall also be liable to fine. On the

other hand, section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 provides

punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault with

rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than

10 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and

shall also be liable to fine.


Page 41 of 48

50. So, in view of the mandate of section 42 of the

POCSO Act, 2012, I proceed to sentence the accused

under section 376(3) of I.P.C.

51. Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. is mandatory provision of

law. The Court is required to hear the accused on the

question of sentence. I have accordingly heard the accused

person. He has stated that he is the sole bread earner of his

family, having his wife and a female child and his wife is a

ailing woman and so he prayed for taking leniency in the

matter of imposition of sentence and begs mercy of the

Court.

52. Having so heard and on conviction as aforesaid,

accused Rupan Deuri @ Babu is sentenced to suffer

Rigorous Imprisonment (in short, R.I.) for 20 years

and to pay a fine of Rs. 20, 000/- (Rupees Twenty

Thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to suffer

R.I. for 6 months under section 6 of POCSO Act.

53. The fine amounts, if realized, shall be given to

the victim.


Page 42 of 48

54. The period of detention already undergone by the

accused person shall be set off against the sentence of

imprisonment under section 428 of the Cr.P.C.

COMPENSATION TO VICTIM:

55. I have considered the provision of section 33 (8) of

POCSO Act, 2012 and also Rule 9 (2) of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020. Having

considered the facts and broad circumstances of this case

under which the offence was committed and all other relevant

aspects of this case including the age of the victim, her social

background as perceivable from the evidence and materials

on record and severity of the mental trauma presumably

suffered by the victim, I am of the considered view that an

order as to compensation deserves to be suo moto passed in

favour of the victim girl. In this regard, I have also duly

considered the directions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex

Court of India in the case of Nipun Saxena and

Another Vs. Union of India and Others, WP (C) No. 565

of 2012 dated 05.09.2018.

56. It is therefore, directed that a compensation which is

quantified at Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) shall be

paid to the victim girl by the District Legal Services Authority,

Morigaon after complying with the norms and procedures

prescribed therefore.


Page 43 of 48

57. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the District Legal

Services Authority, Morigaon for doing the needful as directed

above. Also furnish a copy of this judgment to the CWC,

Morigaon for information and necessary action as provided

under Rule 10 of the POCSO Rules, 2020.

58. It appears from the order dated 26.07.2019 that the

learned counsel Mr. K.C. Mahanta was appointed as Legal Aid

Counsel for the accused person. He would accordingly be

entitled to his remuneration as per relevant rules. The DLSA,

Morigaon shall do the needful in this regard.

59. I also put on record my deep appreciation to the

learned Special P.P. namely, Mr. A. Bisahya and as well as

learned defence counsel namely, Mr. K.C. Mahanta for

assisting this Court in disposal of this case even in the

situation of COVID-19 pandemic.

60. Let a free copy of this judgment be forthwith furnished

to the accused person.

61. Send a copy of this judgment to the learned District

Magistrate, Morigaon in compliance of section 365 of Cr.P.C.


Page 44 of 48

62. Given under my hand & seal of this Court on this 21st

day of February, 2022.

Dictated & corrected by me: (A.K. Basfor, A.J.S) (A.K. Basfor, A.J.S) Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge, Morigaon (Assam).

…….Appendix 14


Page 45 of 48

APPENDIX-14

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

A. Prosecution:

RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS)

PW1 Bipin Ch. Bordoloi Informant

PW2 Sri Putu Konwar Other Witness

PW3 Sri Pallabi Bordoloi Other Witness/ ASHA worker

PW4 Smt Kabita Bordoloi Other Witness

PW5 (Name withheld) Victim/eye Witness

PW6 Dr. Ruma Dutta Medical Witness

PW7 S.I. Pranjal Chetia Investigating Officer (I.O.)/police witness

PW8 Dr. Madhusmita Baruah Deka Medical Witness


Page 46 of 48

B. Defence Witnesses :

RANK NAME Nature Of Evidence (EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS)

NIL

C. Court Witnesses

RANK NAME Nature Of Evidence (EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS)

CW1 Smt. Bidya Prabha Bora

Court Witness


Page 47 of 48

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS A. Prosecution:

Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description

1 Exhbit-1 F.I.R.

2 Exhbit-2 Medical examination report of victim dated 13.07.2019

3 Exhbit-3 Sketch Map on Place of Occurrence

4 Another Exhibit-3 Medical examination report of victim dated 20.08.2019

5 Exhbit-4 Charge-sheet

B. Defence:


NIL


Page 48 of 48

C. Court Exhibits :


1 Exhibit-X School Admission Register 2003 to 2013

2 Exhibit-X(1) Admission details of the year 2011 in class-I

3 Exhibit-X(2) Relevant entry showing name of victim and her date of birth

4 Exhibit-Y School Attendance Register for the year 2016

D. Material objects :


NIL

(A.K. Basfor, A.J.S) Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge, Morigaon (Assam).

Documents

SPECIAL JUDGE (POCSO) :: MORIGAON (Assam) Present