THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Itanagar Permanent Bench Criminal Appeal (Jail) No. 05(AP)/2022. Shri Himanta Buragohain, S/o Late Sanjiv Buragohain, R/o Dighol Mesaki, P.O. & P.S. – Dhola, Dist. – Tinsukia, Assam. …… Appellant. -Versus- 1. The State of Arunachal Pradesh represented by Addl. P.P. 2. Smti. Purbani Moungkang, D/o Chow Mohendra Moungkang, Vill. - Lathao, P.S. – Namsai, Dist. – Namsai, Arunachal Pradesh. …… Respondents. BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Advocates for the appellant :- Mr. T. Son, Amicus Curiae. Advocate for the respondent No. 1 :- Mr. G. Tado, Addl. P.P. Advocate for the respondent No. 2 :- Ms. N. Anju, Legal Aid Counsel. GAHC040004692022 Date of Hearing :- 06.06.2025. Date of Judgment & Order :- 21.07.2025. JUDGEMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. T. Son, learned Amicus Curie for the appellant; Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1; and Ms. N. Anju, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC herein after), is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 10.02.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Tezu (trial court hereinafter), in POCSO Case No. 06 (NMS)/2021. 2.1. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.02.2022, the learned trial court had convicted the appellant herein, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC hereinafter) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and further directed that the period, which he had spent in the judicial custody, shall be set off from the sentence awarded to him. Background Facts:- 3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are adumbrated herein below:- “On 16.03.2021, Smti „X‟ (name withheld), aged 15 years, was returning to the residence of Ms. Purbani Moungkang, the informant herein, from her sister‟s residence and after entering into the house, she immediately took bath and was silently sitting inside her room in dark. Then, on being asked, she disclosed that at about 06:00 pm, when she was returning home, one person, who worked at saw mill, located at Lathao village, had pulled her forcefully towards the jungle and closed her mouth with a white gamsa and committed rape upon her and the said person was identified as Shri Himanta Buragohain, the present appellant. Thereafter, on the same day, the informant had lodged one FIR with the Officer In-Charge of Namsai Police Station and upon which the Officer-In-Charge the Namsai P.S. had registered a case being Namsai P.S. Case No. 21/2021 under Section 341/376 of the IPC, read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act and endorsed Sub-Inspector Nang Kyamo Khen to investigate the same. Then, the Investigating Officer (IO hereinafter) had visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and got the victim examined by the doctor and collected the report and also got her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC recorded in the court and thereafter, he arrested the accused and forwarded him to the Court. Then, on completion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused to stand trial, under Section 341/376(2)/354-D/506 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Then, the learned trial court, after hearing both the parties had framed charges, against the accused/appellant, under Section 376 of the IPC, read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act on 24.08.2021. Then, on being read and explained over the same to the accused/appellant, he pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, prosecution side had examined as many as five witnesses, and also exhibited ten documents, in support of the charges. Thereafter, the learned trial court had examined the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, and thereafter, hearing both the parties, found the charge under Section 376 of the IPC established against the accused/appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and then, convicted him as aforesaid.” 4. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this present appeal on the following grounds :- (i) That, he has wrongly been convicted without any credible evidence; (ii) That, there are lot of contradiction and improvement in the statements of the prosecution witnesses (PW hereinafter), especially of the informant and the victim; (iii) That, the medical report has belied the prosecution version, though she was examined within a period of 24 hours; (iv) That, the accused and the victim both were talking to each other and they had been seen by elder sister (PW2) and on the fear of being scolded, made the false story; and (v) That, the victim did not raise any hue and cry, though she got sufficient time to raise the same. 4.1. Under such circumstances, it is contended to allow this appeal, by setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 10.02.2022, so passed by the learned trial court, in POCSO Case No. 06 (NMS)/2021. Submissions:- 5. Mr. Son, learned Amicus Curiae, during the course of hearing, has raised following points for consideration of this court and based upon the same, he submits that the prosecution side could not prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, contended to acquit him. (i) That, there is contradiction in the evidence of the victim with her statements recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC for which, no reliance can be placed upon her evidence; (ii) That, the medical evidence does not support the case of the victim and the doctor found no sign of sexual intercourse and also found her hymen intact; (iii) That, there are many contradiction in the evidence of PW4, for which, no reliance could be placed upon her evidence; (iv) That, the accused and the victim know each other and possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out; and (v) That, the prosecution story is frivolous and the charges are baseless; 5.1. Mr. Son, in support of his submission has referred to a decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 443. 6. Per contra Mr. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and submits that though the prosecution case is not supported by medical evidence, yet, the Medical Officer, in her evidence, could not ruled out the possibility of commission of sexual intercourse. Mr. Tado further submits that there is no contradiction in the evidence of the victim, with her earlier statement, recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. 6.1. It is the further submission of Mr. Tado that though there is no eye witness to the occurrence, yet, the evidence of the victim can be relied upon in absence of corroboration from independent witnesses and the sentence, so handed down by the learned trial Court, is insufficient and the same is required to be enhanced. 6.2. In support of his submission, Mr. Tado has referred to two decisions of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Aman Kumar and Another vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 379, and Prithipal Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 10. Page 7 of 23 7. On the other hand, Ms. Anju, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has raised the following points for consideration of this court:- (i) That, there is no discrepancy in the evidence of the victim with her earlier statement, recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, and (ii) That, though the medical evidence has not supported the version of the victim, yet, on this count, alone, the evidence of the victim cannot be disbelieved. 7.1. Therefore, it is contended to upheld the judgment and order dated 10.02.2022, passed by the learned trial court, in POCSO Case No. 06 (NMS)/2021. 7.2. Ms. Anju, in support of her submission, has referred to a decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash vs. State of U.P., reported in (2006) 9 SCC 787. Discussion:- 8. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the record of the learned trial court and also perused the impugned judgment and order dated 10.02.2022 and also gone through the decisions, so referred by learned counsel for both the parties. 9. It appears that though the accused was charged under Section 376 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, yet, the learned trial Court had found the charge under Section 376 of the IPC established and acquitted him of other charges. Admittedly, no cross-appeal has been filed by the State respondent No. 1 against acquittal of the accused/appellant of the other charge and also for enhancement of the punishment so imposed. Therefore, this court will confine its discussion to the charge under Section 376 of the IPC only. 10. Admittedly, herein this case, there is no eye witnesses to the occurrence, except however, the victim. So, the evidence of the victim has to be considered in the light of the other facts and circumstances on the record. 11. It appears that the prosecution side had examined the victim as PW3. Her evidence reveals that on the day of the incident she was returning from her elder sister‟s house to her sister‟s house and on the way, the accused followed her and grabbed her from backside. Thereafter, the accused forcefully took her to a nearby jungle and thereafter, gagged her mouth with a cloth and removed all her clothes, from top to bottom, including her inner wears, and then the accused undressed himself and took out his private part and inserted the same into her private part and thereafter, committed rape upon her. After commission of rape upon her, he asked her to put on clothes and let her go with a warning that he will kill her, if she disclosed the incident to anyone else. Thereafter, on her way back to home, she met her elder sister and she told her that she dropped money somewhere and she was looking for the same. Thereafter, on reaching home, she took bath and her younger sister asked her what went wrong with her. Then, she narrated the story to her and then her younger sister took her to the saw mill, where she had identified the accused. Thereafter, she was taken to police station and she was interrogated by police on the same day and she was taken to hospital for examination. Thereafter, on the next day she was also taken to court. 11.1. The defence side had cross examined the victim at length and it is elicited that the accused gagged her mouth for which, she could not shout for help and on that day she was wearing a T-shirt, half pant and panty and accused had removed her clothes. It is also elicited that she stated before the police that the accused torn her pant and inner wears and the accused had released sticky substance from his private part, that had fallen on her clothes and she does not remember about stating the said fact before the police. It is also elicited that she was not beaten but, she was asked to leave the place of occurrence with a warning that she should not disclose the incident to anyone else. She admitted that she knew the accused prior to the incident and the accused tried to talk with her, but, she always avoided him. It is also elicited that the police seized her clothes, but, the same had not been shown to her in the court. 12. Thus, it appears that there is no major contradiction in the version of the victim and her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC (Exhibit – 9) also lend corroboration to her version, wherein she stated that on 16.03.2021, while she was returning to her sister‟s house, then she was followed by the accused and suddenly he pounced upon her and dragged her towards jungle and threw her on the ground and forcefully undressed her and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her and after committing the act, the accused threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed to anyone else. When she returned home and seeing her condition, her Didi inquired about the same and then she disclosed the incident to her. 13. PW1 is the informant and her evidence reveals that she know the accused, who had committed rape upon her younger sister and she has taken her younger sister to the saw mill, where the accused was working and she indentified the accused, who had committed rape upon her. Then, the matter was reported to police in the evening and she lodged the FIR P/Ext-1 and then police interrogated the victim and taken her to the court and thereafter, to police station. 13.1. The accused/appellant had cross-examined this witness and it is elicited that she had told before the police, that the victim is her domestic help. She admitted that she had not produced any documentary proof of age of the victim and she had not exactly remembered at what time the victim returned home, however, in the FIR she had written that it was at about 06:00 pm. It is also elicited that when asked, the victim disclosed that she was taken to Juna road, but, she did not disclose this fact before the police, but, she stated that the victim was taken to backyard of Agriculture Office and after pulling down her inner wears to some extent and then forcefully penetrated his private part into the private part of the victim. She admitted that she was not aware if the accused had any relationship with the victim. It is also elicited that the accused did not try to flee away, but, he denied the allegation and that he was in intoxicated state. The FIR (P/Exhibit – 1) also lends corroboration to the version of PW1. Page 11 of 23 14. The prosecution side had also examined one Nang Khemeni Moungkang as PW2. Her evidence reveals that on the day of occurrence, the victim left her house for her sister‟s house and after sometime, when she came to the market she saw her in the market and for which, she asked as to why she had not gone home even at that late hours, then, she informed her that she had misplaced her money and she was looking for the same. But, she did not tell her about the rape incident and she found that she got nervous when she saw her at the market. Thereafter, she came to know about the incident from her sister, when her sister came to the saw mill, which is situated near her house. 14.1. It is elicited in her cross-examination that she was informed about the incident by the informant. 15. PW5 is the doctor, namely, Ponung Mize, who examined the victim. Her evidence reveals that on 16.03.2021, she had examined the victim on being produced by the police and submitted the report, P/Ext-8A. Her evidence reveals that it is always not possible to find out the sign of penetration, though slight penetration was there. She opined that in the present case, there was no sign of sexual assault and the ground to opine the same was because neither there were injuries on her private part nor on her body. She also stated that it is not possible all the time to opine that the victim should sustain injuries when sexual assault was committed upon her and her age is around 16 years as per expert opinion of dental doctor and X/Ray report. Page 12 of 23 15.1. It is elicited in her cross-examination that she has thoroughly examined the private part of the victim and when force is applied there is greater chance of sustaining injuries on the body of the victim as well as on the body of the accused. 16. PW4 is the IO, who, had after completion of the investigation laid charge sheet, P/Ext-10 against the accused/appellant. His evidence reveals that after lodging of the FIR, he visited the place of occurrence and prepared the sketch map of the same, P/Ext-2. He further stated that during the course of investigation, he got the statement of the victim recorded in the court and also got her examined by doctor and collected the report and also seized the vaginal swab, vide seizure list, P/Ext-3 and also seized the undergarments of the accused, vide seizure memo P/Ext-4 and also seized the undergarments of the victim, vide seizure memo P/Ext-5 and also seized the blood sample of the victim vide seizure memo P/Ext-6 and of the accused, vide seizure memo, P/Ext-7 and he collected medical report, P/Ext-8 and also the statement of the victim girl, P/Ext-9. 16.1. It is elicited in his cross-examination that at the time of recording of statement of witnesses by the IO, the informant did not produce any documentary proof to establish that the victim was 15 years old and on the basis of appearance of the victim, the informant told him that she was 15 years old. It is also elicited that the Gamosa used by the accused for gagging the mouth of the victim could not be recovered from the place of occurrence and also from the possession of the accused and that the accused just admitted to have hold the victim. It is also elicited that the victim knew the accused prior to the incident and the accused used to approach her, which she refused. He admitted having not produced the undergarments before the court. 17. From the evidence discussed above, it becomes apparent that except the evidence of the victim there was not eye witness. PW1 came to know about the same from the victim and PW2 came to know about the same from the PW1. Further, it appears that the medical evidence has not supported the version of the victim, though in her evidence, the victim has categorically stated that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault upon her. 18. The accused/appellant had also examined one witness, namely, Pankaj Buragohain as D.W.1. His evidence reveals that he used to work with the accused/appellant in the same saw mill and he had seen the accused on three/four occasions, talking with the victim who was found taking her route nearby the saw mill. It is however, elicited in cross-examination that he had not found the victim girl of loose character or sending any kind of signal to the accused/appellant. 19. Now, the question is as to whether the evidence of the victim, in the backdrop of her medical examination report and the evidence of the doctor, where the doctor has not found any sign of sexual intercourse upon her person and that the hymen being found intact, the evidence of the victim is believable or not. 20. By now, it is well settled in plethora of decisions of Hon‟ble Supreme Court and also by various High Courts, that in some cases, the evidence of the victim alone is sufficient to record conviction, if the evidence of the victim is found to be reliable. Reference in this context may be made of a decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, wherein it has been 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 the 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. 20.1. The test, however, is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trust worthy. Reference in this context can be made to a decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Vahala Bhushan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1989 SC 236, where it has been held that - ‚The testimony of a single witness if it is straight-forward, cogent and if believed is sufficient to prove the prosecution case, the conviction can be made on the testimony of such a single witness.‛ 20.2. A co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Abdul Kalam vs. State of Tripura, reported in (1996) 2 GLR 251, held that – ‚Section 134 of the Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for proof of any fact. Court is therefore, concerned only with quality, not with the quantity of evidence. If the evidence of a solitary witness appears to be trustworthy and credible, same can be foundation of conviction.‛ 21. In the present case, it appears that the victim was returning from the house of elder sister of the informant and after reaching the house of the informant, she had immediately taken a bath and she was inside her room in dark and when informant inquired, she disclosed about the occurrence to her. Thereafter, the informant immediately lodged the FIR with the Namsai Police Station. There is no delay in lodging of the FIR to raise any doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. 21.1. The evidence of the victim is categorical that the accused grabbed her and took her inside the jungle, while she was returning to the residence of PW1, and thereafter, undressed her and also undressed himself and thereafter, committed penetrative sexual assault upon her. This piece of evidence of the victim remained un- rebutted. However, in her cross-examination she stated that the accused released some sticky substance on her clothes. But, the said clothes, though sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, no such report was produced before the court. Further, the evidence of the doctor (PW5) has not supported her evidence. Now, the question is whether the prosecution version is to be disbelieved on these counts. This aspect was dealt with by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the following decisions:- 22. In the case of Sheikh Zakir vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 10, it has been held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as under:- "Insofar as non-production of a medical examination report and the clothes which contained semen, the trial court has observed that the complainant being a woman who had given birth to four children it was likely that there would not have been any injuries on her private parts. The complainant and her husband being persons belonging to a backward community like the Santhal tribe living a remote area could not be expected to know that they should rush to a doctor. In fact the complainant has deposed that she had taken bath and washed her clothes after the incident. The absence of any injuries on the person of the complainant may not by itself discredit the statement of the complainant. Merely because the complainant was a helpless victim who was by force prevented from offering serious physical resistance she cannot be disbelieved. In this situation the non-production of a medical report would not be of much consequence if the other evidence on record is believable. It is, however, nobody's case that there was such a report and it had been withheld." 23. In the case of Ranjit Hazarika vs. State of Assam, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 635, Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the medical evidence belies that testimony of the prosecutrix and her parents does not impress us. The mere fact that no injury was found on the private parts of the prosecutrix or her hymen was found to be intact does not belie the statement of the prosecutrix as she nowhere stated that she bled per vagina as a result of the penetration of the penis in her vagina. She was subjected to sexual intercourse in a standing posture and that itself indicates the absence of any injury on her private parts. To constitute the offence of rape, penetration, however slight, is sufficient. The prosecutrix deposed about the performance of sexual intercourse by the appellant and her statement has remained unchallenged in the cross-examination. Neither the non- rupture of the hymen nor the absence of injuries on her private parts, therefore, belies the testimony of the prosecutrix particularly when we find that in the cross- examination of the prosecutrix, nothing has been brought out to doubt her veracity or to suggest as to why she would falsely implicate the appellant and put her own reputation at stake. The opinion of the doctor that no rape appeared to have been committed was based only on the absence of rupture of the hymen and injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix. This opinion cannot throw out an otherwise cogent and trustworthy evidence of the prosecutrix. Besides, the opinion of the doctor appears to be based on ‘no reasons’.‛ 24. In the case of The State of M.P. vs. Dayal Sahu, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 122, Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that:- ‚A plethora of decisions by this Court as referred to above would show that once the statement of prosecutrix inspires confidence and accepted by the courts as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the courts for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. It is also noticed that minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Non-examination of doctor and non-production of doctor's report would not cause fatal to the prosecution case, if the statements of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses inspire confidence. 25. Again Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurmit Singh State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, wherein Hon‟ble Supreme Court has been held as under: - "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. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. Page 20 of 23 The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. 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. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind a probable.‛ 26. In the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (1983) 3 SCC 217, Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed that refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. This Court deprecated viewing evidence of such victim with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinted with doubt, disbelief or suspicion. 27. Here in this case, the evidence of the victim is consistent with her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, and consistent with the FIR, Exhibit-1 also and with the evidence of PW1/her sister. There is no material contradiction in her version and she had successfully withstood the test of cross-examination. She is the victim of crime. There appears to be no animus between the victim and the appellant and the same ruled out false implication. Her evidence is able to inspire confidence of this court notwithstanding non-production of FSL Report and absence of corroboration from medical evidence. And therefore, this court is inclined to accept the same. 28. I have considered the submission of Mr. Son, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/appellant and also gone through the case law, referred by him. But, in view of above discussion and finding the submission of Mr. Son left this court unimpressed. The decision referred by him in the case of Santosh Prasad (Supra), also found to be not applicable in all force in the given facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Page 23 of 23 29. On the other hand, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Ms. Anju, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2, who had rightly submit that the evidence of the victim can be relied upon notwithstanding absence of corroboration from the medical evidence and eye witnesses, and the decisions referred by them also strengthened their submissions. 30. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Send down the record of the learned court below immediately with a copy of this judgment and order. 31. Ms Son and Ms. Anju, learned Amicus Curiae and Legal Aid Counsel, shall be paid their fees as per entitlement, on production of a certified copy of this judgment and order. 32. The parties have to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant