ITANAGAR, 10 Jun: A Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act has sentenced a man to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for raping a minor girl below the age of 12 years, bringing to an end a four-year-long trial arising from an incident reported in the Itanagar Capital Region in 2022.

Special Judge (POCSO), Yupia, Hirendra Kashyap, on Tuesday sentenced Nabam Sanjay after finding him guilty under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, both of which deal with aggravated sexual offences against children below 12 years of age.

The court also imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 on the convict and ordered that he would undergo an additional two months of simple imprisonment in default of payment.

The case originated from an FIR lodged by the victim’s mother at the Itanagar Women Police Station on March 7, 2022. According to the prosecution led by special public prosecutor Kagam Bagra, the accused, who was known to the family, allegedly entered the victim’s rented residence at Chimpu on March 6, 2022, while the girl’s mother had gone to church and her brother was away. Taking advantage of the child being alone, he allegedly sexually assaulted her.

The prosecution told the court that the victim initially remained silent due to fear and trauma. The incident came to light when her mother noticed blood-stained clothes and bedsheets and later discovered WhatsApp conversations between the accused and the victim. Upon being questioned, the girl disclosed the assault.

Police registered a case and endorsed the case to Inspector Dopi Pakam for investigation. The victim was medically examined and her statement was recorded before a magistrate under relevant legal provisions. Investigators later tracked down the accused to a hotel in Ziro, Lower Subansiri district, where he had allegedly fled after the incident and arrested him.

 During the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the victim, her mother, the investigating officer and the doctor who conducted the medical examination. The prosecution relied on the victim’s testimony, medical findings, documentary evidence relating to her age, electronic communications and witness statements.

The defence denied the allegations and claimed that the accused had been attending a picnic at Chimpu-Hollongi Road on the day of the incident. It also attempted to suggest that the case was the result of personal disputes between the accused and the victim’s mother. Several defence witnesses were produced to support the plea of alibi.

However, after examining the evidence, the court rejected the defence version and held that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court observed that the testimony of the child victim was consistent, credible and sufficiently corroborated by other evidence on record.

The court further accepted the prosecution’s contention that the victim was below 12 years of age at the time of the offence, relying on her birth records, school documents and medical evidence.

During the hearing on sentence, defence counsel sought leniency, arguing that the convict was a law student and social worker with no previous criminal record and that it was his first conviction.

The prosecution opposed the plea and urged the court to award the maximum punishment prescribed under law, citing the seriousness of the offence and the tender age of the victim.

In its sentencing order, the court noted that the convict had shown no remorse for his actions and had sought to malign the reputation of the victim and her mother during the course of the trial. It held that he was not entitled to any benefit under probation laws.

At the same time, the court observed that the case did not fall within the category of the “rarest of rare” cases warranting the death penalty and opted to impose a 20-year term of rigorous imprisonment.

The court also directed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Papum Pare, to provide adequate compensation to the survivor under the Arunachal Pradesh Victim Compensation Act, 2011. It further ordered that the fine amount, if deposited by the convict, be paid to the victim towards her rehabilitation.