IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON’BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH AND HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) CRA (DB)/1/2025 IA.No. CRAN/2/2026 SHRI. SILAS HOROW ... APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENT For the Appellant : Mr. Siddhartha Singha For the state : Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar Heard on : 20.03.2026 Judgment on : 20.03.2026 TIRTHANKAR GHOSH, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Court under POCSO Act, Mayabunder in connection with Special Case No.24 of 2023 wherein the learned Trial Court was pleased to hold the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for twenty years along with fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for five months. 2 2. The genesis of the present case was on the basis of the statement of victim girl, which was recorded by the SHO of Kalighat PS. The contents of the said statement read as follows:- “I live with my father in Kishorinagar and do household work. My mother died while giving birth to me and my father brought me up. I have never gone to school. I know Silas Horow who is my neighbor, since childhood and on 12 July, 2021, a case was also registered in Kalighat Police Station against Silas Horow for making me pregnant. At that time, I was 15 years old. Silas came out of jail about 01 years ago and he lived in my neighbourhood and also we both liked each other and Silas used to come to my house, meanwhile we also had physical relation, due to which I became pregnant and on 06/08/23, I gave birth to a boy child in my own house in Kishorinagar. Today, on 21/08/23, I came to PHC K/ Nagar after being called by the medical staff where after giving first aid to me and my child, the doctor informed the police about my delivery and age. Silas Horow has had physical relations with me several times and hence , I became pregnant and gave birth to a boy child. Therefore, appropriate action should be taken against Silas Horow.” 3. Pursuant to such information being furnished, Kalighat Police Station Case No.15 dated 21.08.2023 was registered for investigation under the provision of Section 5(j), 5(l) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Investigating agency on conclusion of investigation submitted charge sheet No. 15/2023 on or about 30.09.2023 under Section 5(j) (ii)/6 of POCSO Act. 4. After compliance of the supply of copies to the accused the learned Trial Court framed charges on 17.11.2023 under Section 6 of POCSO Act. The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon fifteen witnesses as also thirteen documents. The learned Trial Court on 3 appreciation of the materials placed before the Court passed the order of conviction against the appellant and sentenced him to suffer as above. 5. We have heard the submissions of the learned advocate appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. From the records we have taken into account the evidence of the victim which for the peculiar circumstances of this case is set out in verbatim as follows: “6. Today I had come to depose in court pursuant to the summons issued relating to a case involving me. 7. I delivered a baby boy in my house on 06.08.2023 and later the health workers came to my house and took me and my baby boy to CHC Diglipur and got us admitted there. The doctor called the police and from the CHC Diglipur police arrested the accused person Silas Horow 8. In the hospital I told the police that Raju is the father of my baby boy. 9. Police took my LTI on some document. This is my said LTI. 10. I also put my LTI at CHC Diglipur where the medical examination of myself and my baby was done. This is the said LTIs on the Medical Legal Examination papers. 11. Police also brought me to court where I gave my statement before the Ld. Magistrate. (Witness is declared hostile at this stage and cross examined by prosecution) Cross-examination by Prosecution:- 12. It is a fact that I gave my statement before the police. 13. I told police that Silas Horow had a case wherein he was in jail for one year. 14. I have been residing in the house of Silas Horow for the last one year and during my stay with him he made forcible penetrative sexual assault with me, as a result of such sexual assault I became pregnant and later delivered the baby boy. 15. A lady constable was present when my statement was being recorded by the police and she read over and explained the contents to me and after understanding the same to be correct I put my LTI on the said statement. 16.I also told the attending doctor that Silas is responsible for my pregnancy. She too recorded my statement and after the same was read over to me I put my LTIs thereon. 17. Silas Horow is present in court and identified on dock. Cross-examination by Defence: 18. I do not know Silas Horow. 19. The man on dock is Raju. He did not perform physical act with me and he is, not the father of m: child. The man on dock is not my co-villager. 20. The man on dock who is present today is the father of my child begotten after he made forcible sexual assault on me. I resided with him and though we are not married but I love him. Still I want to reside with him as he is the father of my child. 4 21. We had sexual intercourse on consent as husband and wife. 22. I did not lodge any complaint with the police nor did I give any statement before the police. 23. Police had written something wherein my RTI was taken. 24. I did not narrate before the attending doctor about the physical sexual assault by the accused or me. 25. At present I am aged 16 years. I was born on 12.04.2006 at Kalighat hospital. 26. I gave my statement before the Ld. Magistrate wherein I had stated that "hum case nehi kiya medical se doctor ne phone karke police ko bulaya, hum chahthe hai ki mera husband Silas Horow ko jamanat mil jaye, use chod dijiye, hum apne husband ke sath rehna chahthe hai, hum case nahi karna chahthe hai" . We resided together with love. At present we are living separately 27. I want to live with my husband peacefully as he takes care of me. He never forced himself upon me nor did he forcibly enter into sexual intercourse with me. 28. When I resided with the accused I was aged 15 years but when police arrested him, I was 17½ years.” 6. Mr. Karmakar, learned Public Prosecutor emphasised on the medical evidence as well as the factum that the victim at the relevant stage was minor, consent of the victim cannot be accepted in the eye of law and since minor victim gave birth to a male child, there is no scope under the provisions of POCSO Act to acquit the appellant. 7. On the other hand learned advocate appearing for the appellant emphasised on the facts of the case particularly the statement of the victim and that the victim had no accusations personally so far as the present appellant is concerned and she understood herself to be wife of the accused. There was conjugal relationship as husband and wife, consequent to which a child was born. At the time of deposition she also expressed her willingness to lead a family with her husband peacefully. 8. Taking into account the peculiar circumstances of the case learned Public Prosecutor was confronted with the issue as to whether 5 the victim was provided with a shelter home or any compensation was provided to her, for her day today life expenses. The learned Public Prosecutor could not satisfy this Court on this aspect. 9. While it is the duty of the State to ensure that no offender under the eye of law escapes and it is fact that the consent of a minor is no consent in the eye of law but at the same time we feel helpless to find that inspite of relevant provision of the POCSO Act the State has not proceeded to provide any social security to the victim who is of tender age and has given birth to a child. 10. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (2025) SCC Online SC 1200 and having regard to the totality of the circumstances of the present case we are of the opinion that the act of the accused can in no manner be encouraged. As such we uphold the finding of guilt arrived at by the learned Trial Court under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, so far as the sentence of twenty years along with fine which has been imposed upon the present appellant, having considered the social ramifications as well as the admitted facts of the present case that the victim understood the appellant as her husband and lead a conjugal life, we are of the opinion that as no social security has been provided by the State and the victim in her deposition before the learned Special Court expressed her willingness to continue her conjugal life with the appellant, the inherent powers of this Court should be exercised under Section 482 of the 6 Cr.P.C. or Section 528 of the BNSS. Records of the case reflect that the appellant had already served out almost 3½ years of sentence in the present case. Considering the exceptional circumstance in the present case we exercise our inherent powers and we direct that the sentence undergone by the appellant are sufficient in the facts of the present case. 11. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from his bail bonds. 12. With the aforesaid observation CRA (DB)/1/2025 is partly allowed. 13. Pending applications, if any, are consequently disposed of. 14. Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted forthwith. 15. Department is directed to forwarded a copy of the judgment to the Special Court under the POCSO Act and also the Superintendent of Correctional Home immediately. 16. All the parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 17. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (TIRTHANKAR GHOSH, J.) I agree. (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)