Sujit Majumdar v. The State

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL APPELLETE JURISDICTION (CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR) PRESENT:

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH CRA 011 of 2019 Sri Sujit Mazumdar -vs.- The State For the Appellant :

Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra For the State :

Ms. A. S. Zinu Heard on :

21.06.2022, 23.06.2022 & 27.06.2022.

Judgment on :

25.07.2022 Tirthankar Ghosh, J:- The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.07.2019/30.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Andaman & Nicobar Island, Port Blair in Special Case No.001 of 14 (arising out of Rangat P.S. Case No. 175/13 dated 13.12.2013). By the said judgment the learned trial Court was pleased to convict the appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three (3) years and impose fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three (3) months.

The genesis of the case relate to a First Information Report dated 13.12.2013 addressed to the Officer-in-charge, Rangat Police Station by One 'I' residing at Rangat, Ward No.7 (hereinafter referred to as 'the informant'). It was alleged by the informant that she had three daughters who were students of Class VI, Class IV and Class II respectively and studied at Government Model School, Janakpur. The elder daughter 'A' was aged about 12 years and she complained that her teacher Sujit Mazumdar was touching her body and chest. The informant inquired from her daughter as to whether the accused has only touched her or did the same with other children, to this 'A' stated that the accused did the same with 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G', 'H' and many other students of Class VI.

The informant along with mothers of the other students met the headmaster and complained against the accused who touched the body and chest of the girl students, when the school Principal called the teacher Sujit Mazumdar and interrogated him, when he got angry and as such the informant had no other option but to complain the same to the police station, as in future she apprehends the same mistake would be committed by the accused.

On the basis of the aforesaid complaint Rangat Police Station Case No. 175/13 dated 13.12.2013 was registered for investigation and the police authorities after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 354/354A (1)(i)(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, 2012. The learned Special Court, however, framed charges only under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and called upon the prosecution to prove its

case. The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon 23 witnesses and 20 documents which were marked as Exhibits. The witness cited by the prosecution included the informant, girl students/victims, their mothers, headmaster of the School, two doctors, one Judicial Officer who recorded the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, two police Officers and one head constable associated with Rangat Police Station. PW1, 'I' is the informant of the case. She deposed before the Court that she had three daughters and her elder daughter (PW2) was aged about 12 years in the year 2013 and was studying at Janakpur School. One day after returning from school PW2 reported that their teacher i.e. Sujit Mazumdar placed his hands over the breast of her friends and also touched her breast on the same day i.e. 13.12.2013.

PW2 thereafter, communicated with the mothers of all the affected girls in the school and spoke with the headmaster. According to her at that time the accused teacher Sujit Mazumdar confessed his guilt and thereafter she lodged written complaint at Rangat Police Station regarding the incident. Written complaint was showed to her and she identified the same including her signature which was marked as Ext.1. She also identified the accused in Court. In cross-examination she denied the incident as also the written complaint to be a false one and admitted that the GTT teacher in the school namely, one Kavita Roy was her elder sister. However, she stated that she had no visiting or talking terms with her. She also stated that her daughter did not say anything to the said Kavita Roy who happened to be the teacher of the said school.

PW2, namely, 'A' is the daughter of PW1 and one of the victims of the incident. She stated that she is a student of Government Middle School at Janakpur and she was studying at Class VIII. In the year 2013 she was studying at Class VI. The science teacher namely, Sujit Mazumdar placed his hands on the breast of her friends namely, 'B', 'C', 'D', 'G' and 'E', she also deposed that the teacher also placed his hands on her breast and she narrated the incident to her mother, as her mother was surprised regarding the incident she communicated with the mother of all the other girls who assembled and went to the Headmaster of the School on 13.12.2013. The science teacher was called by the Headmaster where he confessed his guilt and prayed for mercy.

She also deposed that her mother lodged a complaint with the police station regarding the incident and she was subsequently taken before the Judicial Magistrate at Mayabunder where she stated the incident to the Magistrate, which was reduced into writing and she signed the same after the contents were read over and explained to her. She identified her signatures in the said statement which were marked as Ext.2/1, Ext.2/2 and Ext.2/3. The witness was confronted in cross-examination regarding topography of the school as also in respect of the incident, however, the witness was firm in respect of her deposition as earlier made during examination-in-chief. Further, there were questions apropos the bitter relationship of Sujit Mazumdar and Kavita Roy, which she denied.

She also denied firmly regarding the allegations to be false or she being tutored by her mother and by said Kavita Roy.

PW3, namely, 'B' is a student of Class VIII of Government Middle School, Janakpur. She deposed that in the year 2013 she was a student of Class VI of the said school. She stated that the accused Sujit Mazumdar gave them task of writing and when she was writing at that time the teacher came from behind, and placed his hands on her breast. She also stated that such misdeed was committed by the teacher with 'A', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F' and 'G'. She deposed that after returning from school she reported to her mother and her friends also reported to their mothers and on 12.12.2013 mothers of all the girls came to school and went to the Headmaster and from there to the police station and it was "A's" mother who reported the incident to police.

She also deposed that she gave her statement before the Judicial Magistrate who reduced the same to writing and the contents of the same were read over and explained to her when she signed the said statement, she identified the said statement and her signatures were marked as Ext.3/1, Ext.3/1a and Ext.3/1b. She also identified Sujit Mazumdar in Court. The defence asked similar questions in crossexamination regarding the topography of the school, the professional relationship between Kavita Roy and Sujit Mazumdar. Additional questions were confronted to her in respect of dispute regarding fencing. The witness very firmly answered the questions confronted by the defence and there was no deviation from her earlier version as in examination-in-chief. She denied the suggestions of false implication at the instance of any teacher.

PW4, namely, 'C' is also a student of Class VIII of Government Middle School, Janakpur.

Mazumdar touched her breast with his hands and also committed the same misdeed with her other classmates namely, 'A', 'B', 'D', 'F' and 'G'. She narrated the incident in similar manner as PW2 and PW3 and further stated that her statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate which was reduced to writing and after the contents were read over and explained to her, she signed the same. She identified her signatures which were marked as Ext.4, Ext. 4/1a and Ext.4/1b. She also identified the accused on dock. She was confronted in cross-examination with same nature of questions as PW2 and PW3 and with similar suggestions. The witness deposed very firmly and there was no deviation in respect of any factual issues from her deposition in examination-in-chief.

PW5, namely, 'D' is a student of Class VIII of Government Middle School, Janakpur. She also stated that in the year 2013 when she was writing at that time the science teacher namely, Sujit Mazumdar placed his hands on her breast and also committed the same act with 'A', 'B', 'E', 'F' and 'G'. She stated that out of fear she did not disclose such incident to anybody and not even to her mother. However, her mother attended the school and she came to know regarding the incident and when her mother asked regarding the incident she disclosed the same to her mother. She also stated that her mother accompanied the mother of all her friends who went to the Headmaster and narrated the matter to him. She also stated that she was interrogated by the police. She also gave her statement before the Judicial Magistrate at Mayabunder which was reduced to writing, the contents of which were read

over and explained to her when she signed the same. She identified her signatures in Court which were marked as Ext.5/1, Ext.5/1(a) and Ext.5/1(b), she also identified the accused in Court. The witness in cross-examination was confronted with similar questions and particularly on the issue as to whether she reported the incident to police which she denied. She also stated that she was interrogated by police and also taken to a hospital for medical examination. In reply to a question she stated that she was reprimanded by the accused when she asked the accused that why did he do so? She denied the defence suggestions that she was instigated by the other teacher Kavita Roy and also denied of falsely implicating the present accused. PW6, namely, 'E' is a Class VIII student of Government Middle School, Janakpur.

She also stated the incident in the same manner as the other victims that the accused Sujit Mazumdar had put his hands on her breast while she was writing and same misdeed was committed by the accused with 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'F' and 'G'. She identified her statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate which was reduced to writing and the contents of which were read over to her when she signed the same. Her signatures were marked as Ext.6/1, Ext.6/1(a) and Ext.6/1(b). The victim in her cross-examination was un-shaken by the questions with which she was confronted with. PW7, namely, 'F' was declared hostile as she could not recollect any incident at her school which were stated by the other girls/victims/classmates.

PW8, namely, 'G' was also a student of Class VI at the relevant period of time in Government Middle School, Janakpur. The witness/victim failed to recollect any incident and as such she was also declared hostile. PW9, namely, 'H' is a student of Government Middle School, Janakpur. She also deposed that the accused had touched her breast and also held her hand while she was going to bathroom. She also stated that she informed the matter to her parents which were subsequently reported to police. She identified the accused Sujit Mazumdar in Court. PW10, 'K' is the mother of PW4, who deposed before the Court, that one day after returning from school her daughter PW4 reported to her that their science teacher Sujit Mazumdar used to tease her by inserting betel leaf in her mouth after taking out the same from his own mouth.

She also deposed that the said teacher used to put the food of mid-day meal on her mouth. She deposed that Sujit Mazumdar was confronted regarding such issues when he admitted his guilt, subsequently police came to their house and interrogated her daughter. She identified Sujit Mazumdar in Court. In cross-examination she was confronted regarding the location of her residence which is behind the school and a reference was made regarding the path which was earlier used through the school but subsequent to the fencing being constructed, they were forced to use a different path. She was also confronted with the issue of dispute between her husband and Sujit Mazumdar at the time of construction of the fencing which she denied.

PW11, 'J' is the mother of PW3, who deposed that her daughter used to study at Government Middle School, Janakpur. She also deposed that one day her daughter i.e. PW3 after returning from school was crying and on enquiring she stated that she would not go to school any further as the science teacher namely, Sujit Mazumdar with his hands touched her breast and insert betel leaf in her mouth after taking out the same from his mouth. This witness also stated that such misdeeds were committed to PW2 and also other girls. According to her the guardians went to school, met the Headmaster and the science teacher in presence of the Headmaster admitted his guilt, thereafter they went to the police station and reported the matter. She also identified the accused Sujit Mazumdar in Court. In cross-examination her answers were similar to that of examination-in-chief except for the suggestions which she denied.

PW12, 'L' is the mother of PW5. She narrated that she went to school after receiving calls from other guardians and met the Headmaster regarding misdeed committed by Sujit Mazumdar. She identified Sujit Mazumdar in Court. She also admitted that she did not give any statement to the police officer.

PW13 is Dr. Nadia Rehman, who examined PW4, PW6 and PW2 and identified the medical reports as Ext.8, Ext.9 and Ext.10. PW14, Miss Sita Mazhi, is a member of Social Welfare Board. She deposed that on receiving phone call from parents who requested her to come

to Janakpur School, she reached the school and met with the parents. The parents asked her to enquire from the children and on enquiry she learnt from the children that their teacher touched parts of their body and named the teacher as Sujit Mazumdar. She went to the chamber of the Headmaster where the teacher was also present and asked the teacher why he committed such offence. She further stated thereafter the parents went to the police station for reporting the incident. She identified the teacher Sujit Mazumdar in Court. PW15 is Gerald Lakra, Headmaster of the School. Who stated that all on a sudden some ladies arrived at her chamber and on query they stated they intended to meet one teacher. The headmaster denied having knowledge. He was declared hostile by the prosecution.

PW16, 'M' is the mother of PW6 who stated that her daughter was assaulted by lathi. The witness was declared hostile. PW17, 'O' is the mother of PW9 who narrated the incident in the same manner as narrated by her daughter regarding the act of the teacher having touched with his hands the breast of her daughter. The witness was confronted in cross-examination but she could not be shaken. She also denied the suggestions of the defence regarding false implications of having instigated by other teachers.

PW18, 'P' is the grand-mother of PW3. She stated the incident in the same manner as narrated by PW3 and PW11. In cross-examination she also was un-shaken, so far as the narration of facts relating to commission of

alleged offence. She also denied the suggestions relating to false implication of the accused.

PW19, Hriday Brahma is the Head Constable who was posted at Rangat Police Station in the year 2013 who prepared the formal FIR and also identified the same in Court which was marked As Ext.11. PW20, Abita Bachan was Station House Officer of Rangat Police Station in the year 2013. According to the witness he received the case flies from Abdul Salam. He also filed the charge-sheet in connection with the Crime no. 175/2013 and the charge-sheet was numbered as CS 192/13 dated 31.12.2013.

PW21 is Dr. M.P. Sasumma, a doctor who examined the accused Sujit Mazumdar and found no injury on his person. The injury report was identified by him, it was marked as Ext.12. The witness also examined PW7 and identified the report which was marked as Ext.13. The witness stated that the history of the incident as reported by PW7 was regarding fondling of both sides of chest and breast inside the classroom about a week ago. The witness also examined PW8 and PW5 and another girl. The reports were admitted in evidence and marked as Ext. 13/1, Ext.13/2 and Ext.13/3. PW22, is a Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW8. He identified the said statements as whole which were marked as Ext.2, Ext. 3, Ext.4, Ext.5, Ext.6, Ext.7, Ext.11 and Ext.14.

PW23, M.T. Abdul Salam is the Investigating Officer of the case who explained the manner in which the investigation was conducted and the relevant materials were collected.

Mr.

Rakesh Pal Gobind, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner/appellant submitted that the version of the student and their mothers were not consistent. He further added that there was a dispute between Kavita Roy and the present appellant, who were both teachers of the same school and the informant being a relation/sister of the said Kavita Roy has engineered the present case for eliminating the appellant from the school. Another contention advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner is regarding the construction of the fencing/boundary wall of the school. It has been pointed out that there was a dispute between the husband of PW10 and the appellant while the fencing work was in progress.

The reason assigned behind this is that earlier the neighbouring inhabitants of the locality used to pass through school compound/field which was not demarcated using the same as a passage/path. The construction of the fencing/boundary wall compelled them to travel in a roundabout manner which was a long distance. The appellant emphasised that the inconsistency in the prosecution version, enmity between the teachers, previous grudge of the neighbouring inhabitants in the locality of the school led to the institution/registration of the present case and the Learned Special Court without appreciating the same arrived at its finding of guilt solely relying upon the provisions of Section 29 and Section 30 of the POCSO Act.

Ms. A. S. Zinu, learned Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand resisted the submission advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant and drew the attention of the Court to the deposition of the witnesses, particularly in respect of the victim girl students and pointed out that the version of each girl student so far as it related to the appellant with his hand having touched their breasts are consistent. It is further submitted that the same is fortified by the statement of the girl students before the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The deposition of the victim girls are corroborated by their mothers who met the headmaster after coming to know regarding the incident. It has been emphasised that irrespective of the 'presumptions' available under the statute the evidence in the case is overwhelming for attracting the provisions of Section 8 of the POCSO Act. In conclusion the State submitted that there is no scope for interfering with the order of conviction and the sentence awarded which is bare minimum as provided under the statute.

Before appreciating the arguments advanced by both the sides/parties it would be worthwhile to canvass the settled proposition of law on the subject i.e. POCSO Act. For the purpose of this appeal Section 7 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act is quoted below:

"S.7. Sexual assault. - Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any

other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.

S.8. Punishment for sexual assault.- Whoever, commits sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine."

The definition of 'sexual assault' appearing in Section 7 of the POCSO Act was exhaustively dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Attorney General for India -Vs.- Satish & Anr., (2022) 5 SCC 545. In the reported judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the definition of Section 7 of the POCSO act with reference to its structure, analysis, the expression 'touch', 'contact' and 'sexual intent' appearing therein. The following paragraphs of the judgment are relevant and are set out as follows:

76. The structure of Section 7 can be conveniently parsed in the following manner:

"Whoever, (i) with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or; makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person,

(ii) or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault."

77. A close analysis of Section 7 reveals that it is broadly divided into two limbs. Sexual assault, under the first limb is defined as the touching by a person - with sexual intent - of four specific body parts (vagina, penis, anus or breast) of a child, or making a child touch any of those body parts of "such person" (i.e. a clear reference to the offender) or of "any other person" (i.e. other than the child, or the offender). In the second limb, sexual assault is the doing of "any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration".

78. The use of the expression "touch" appears to be common, to the first and second parts, of the first limb. "Touch" says the Cambridge Dictionary is "to put your hand or another part of your body lightly onto and off something or someone."

79.Collins Dictionary, likewise, states that: "Your sense of touch is your ability to tell what something is like when you feel it with your hands."

80. "Contact" on the other hand, which is used in the second limb, has a wider connotation; it encompasses-but is not always limited to-"touch". While it is not immediately apparent why the term "physical contact" has been used in the second limb, its use in conjunction with "any other act" (controlled by the overarching expression "with sexual intent"), indicates that "physical contact" means something which is of wider import than "touching". Viewed so, physical contact without penetration, may not necessarily involve touch. The "other act" involving "physical contact" may involve : direct physical contact by the

offender, with any other body part (not mentioned in the first limb) of the victim; other acts, such as use of an object by the offender, engaging physical contact with the victim; or in the given circumstances of the case, even no contact by the offender (the expression "any other act" is sufficiently wide to connote, for instance, the victim being coerced to touch oneself).

81. Parliamentary intent and emphasis, however, is that the offending behaviour (whether the touch or other act involving physical contact), should be motivated with sexual intent. Parliament moved beyond the four sexual body parts, and covered acts of a general nature, which when done with sexual intent, are criminalised by the second limb of Section 7. The specific mention of the four body parts of the child in the first limb, and the use of the controlling expression "sexual intent" mean that every touch of those four body parts is prima facie suspect.

82. The circumstances in which touch or physical contact occurs would be determinative of whether it is motivated by "sexual intent". There could be a good explanation for such physical contact which include the nature of the relationship between the child and the offender, the length of the contact, its purposefulness; also, if there was a legitimate non-sexual purpose for the contact. Also relevant is where it takes place and the conduct of the offender before and after such contact. In this regard, it would be useful to always keep in mind that "sexual intent" is not defined, but fact-dependent-as the Explanation to Section 11 specifies."

In Ganesan -Vs. - State represented by its Inspector of Police, (2020) 10 SCC 573, the appreciation of evidence in cases relating to Section 7 and

Section 8 of the POCSO Act was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the background of the facts wherein the mother of the victim did not support the version of the victim. In paragraph 10.1 of the judgment while dealing with cases involving molestation, sexual harassment etc. it was observed as follows: "10.1. Whether, in the case involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc., can there be conviction on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, in Vijay [Vijay v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 639] , it is observed in paras 9 to 14 as under: (SCC pp. 195-98) "9. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain [State of Maharashtra v.

Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 210] this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under: (SCC p. 559, para 16) '16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence.

The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her.

mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.'

10. In State of U.P. v. Pappu [State of U.P. v. Pappu, (2005) 3 SCC 594 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 780] this Court held that even in a case where it is shown that the girl is a girl of easy virtue or a girl habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground to absolve the accused from the charge of rape. It has to be established that there was consent by her for that particular occasion. Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the court to absolve the accused. This Court further held that there can be conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and in case, the court is not satisfied with the version of the prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct or circumstantial, by which it may get assurance of her testimony. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 597, para 12)

'12. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice, would do.'

11.

In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 316] , this Court held that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc. the court is duty-bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. The Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 394-96 & 403, paras 8 & 21)

'8. The court overlooked the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three desperate young men who were threatening her and preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix.

The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury.

Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances.

21. ... The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be

relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.'

(emphasis in original) 12.

In State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra [State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra, (2002) 9 SCC 86 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1080] , this Court held that rape is not mere physical assault, rather it often distracts (sic destroys) the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non-examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence. 13.

In State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh [State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 622 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 674] this Court held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Wahid Khan v. State of M.P. [Wahid Khan v. State of M.P.,

(2010) 2 SCC 9 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1208] placing reliance on an earlier judgment in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan [Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, 1951 SCC 1213 : AIR 1952 SC 54] .

14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix."" In this case the victim girl students being PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW9 consistently stated in their deposition before the trial Court regarding the accused/appellant Sujit Mazumdar being their science teacher who touched with his hands their breasts and their parents/guardians being PW1, PW11, PW12, PW10, PW16, PW16, PW17, PW18 supported such version. The victim girls also narrated regarding the incident before the Judicial Magistrate which was marked as Ext.2, Ext.3, Ext.4, Ext.5, Ext.6, Ext.7/1 and Ext.14.

It is a fact that two girl students being PW7 and PW8 deposed before the Court of not recollecting any incident. The argument of the appellant that all the girl students did not support the prosecution case in such circumstances is to be considered on the anvil that PW7 and PW8 did not state before the Court that no such incident had taken place but what they stated was that they could not recollect. Such evidence is to be weighed with the consistent version of PW2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9. On a careful analysis of the depositions of the victim girls, I am of the view that plea of the appellant lacks substantial force to be accepted in the factual matrix of the present case.

The other contention of the appellant that Kavita Roy another teacher being related to the informant/PW1 instigated the informant to complain is also not acceptable to this Court as these were mere suggestions given to the witness and no documentary or oral proof was adduced in support of such contention. Another factor which is to be considered it that it is PW1 and PW2 who were related to the said Kavita Roy but rest of the victim girls namely, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW9 were not related. So issue of acting in a concerted manner at the behest of Kavita Roy another teacher of the school on the basis of the evidence appearing in the instant case is also not acceptable to this Court. The other reason assigned by the defence for implicating the appellant in the present case was regarding the construction of the fencing of the school.

The point raised by the defence/appellant that as the neighbouring persons of the locality were forced to use a different path instead of the field of the school raised animosity and the wrath of which is faced by the appellant. The defence to this extent also confronted PW10 regarding her husband having dispute with Sujit Mazumdar at the time of fencing of the School. Over this issue the same principle will apply that the point of dispute is restricted only to PW10 and her daughter PW4 and cannot be extended to the other girl students who were victim of the misdeed committed by the appellant.

proposition of law and spelt out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesan (supra) Once this Court has arrived at this finding of guilt which affirms the view of the learned trial Court the sentence so imposed requires to be considered. In Section 8 of the POCSO Act the phrase which has been used 'which shall not be less than three years'. The learned trial Court after considering the version of the appellant in respect of the issues relating to sentencing has imposed minimum sentence prescribed by the statute and as such the same do not call for any interference.

The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is hereby affirmed.

The appellant is on bail. His bail bond stands cancelled and is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court (Special Court) within a week from date.

Accordingly, CRA 011 of 2019 is dismissed.

Before parting I must remind the learned Trial Courts who have rampantly used the names of the victim girls without adhering to the guidelines set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Nipun Saxena & Anr. -Vs.- Union of India & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 703 and the Division Bench Judgment of the Calcutta High Court being Prafulla Mura -Vs. - the State of West Bengal and Anr. in CRA(DB) 29/2022. I am not commenting on

the learned Special Judge as the judgment was delivered in the month of July, 2019 while the Supreme Court Judgment was delivered on December 11, 2018. However, henceforth the Special Courts dealing with POCSO Act should adhere to the guidelines set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. The Learned Registrar General, High Court Calcutta as well as Learned Registrar, Circuit Bench at Port Blair should circulate the directions passed in the case of Nipun Saxena & Anr. (supra) and Prafulla Mura (supra) to all the Special Courts within their jurisdiction. Department is directed to send back the Lower Court Records and communicate this judgment to the learned Court below. All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent Xerox certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)