Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - (1.)Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 29/8/2019 and 30/8/2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court at Krishnagar, Nadia in Sessions Trial No.IX(I) of 2019 arising out of Sessions Case No.05(09) of 2018 (Special) convicting the appellant under Sec. 10 of the POCSO Act and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000.00 with default clause, is under challenge in the instant appeal.
That on 14/9/2018, one Aparna Sarkar lodged a written complaint to the Inspector-in-Charge, Krishnagar Women Police Station alleging, inter alia, that the daughter of her younger brother-in-law, since deceased used to reside in the house of her paternal aunt (Pisi). Her father died about 6 years before the date of lodging complaint and after his death, her mother abandoned the said child after marrying another person. On last Sunday before the date of lodging complaint when the victim girl was sleeping in a room at night, the husband of her paternal aunt namely Buro @ Indrajit Debnath forcefully made aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her. One Rabi Mondal, father-in-law of the son of Buro Debnth saw the incident and raised protest. He also informed the matter to everyone. The de facto complainant came to know about the incident on 12/9/2018 and she lodged the written complaint on 14/9/2018.

On the basis of the said complaint police registered Krishnagar Women Police Station Case No.120 of 2018 dtd. 14/9/2018 under Sec. 376(2)(f)(I) of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 6 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

(2.)The investigation of the above numbered police station case ended with filing of charge sheet against the accused Buro @ Indrajit Debnath. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Special Court under the POCSO Act, it was committed to the Court of the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Krishnagar, Nadia for trial. The learned trial Judge framed charge against the accused/appellant under Sec. 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and alternatively under Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act. When the contents of the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, trial of the case commenced.
(3.)It appears from the record that prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in order to establish the charge against the accused. Some documents were marked paper exhibits.
After recording of the evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In course of his examination, he denied his involvement in any such offence and pleaded his innocence. The accused, however, adduced no evidence in support of his defence.

On conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Judge held the accused/appellant guilty for committing offence under Sec. 10 of the POCSO Act. He was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000.00 in default, further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under Sec. 10 of the POCSO Act.