PATNA, India, Oct. 28 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Oct. 7:

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Amicus Curiae and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. We appreciate that learned Amicus Curiae has rendered his services pro-bono.

2. Though the informant-victim has entered her appearance by filing Vakalatanama and the name of Advocate is appearing in the daily cause list but no one appeared on her behalf to oppose the appeal.

3. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 05.01.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned judgment') and the order of sentence dated 18.01.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order') passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Gopalganj (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned trial court') in POCSO Case No. 91 of 2018, C.I.S. No. 91 of 2018 arising out of Barauli P.S. Case No. 204 of 2018. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 5(m)/6, 9(m)/10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short 'POCSO Act'). By the impugned order, he has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years with a fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 376(3) IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo three months simple imprisonment. He has also been ordered to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 9(m)/10 of the POCSO Act with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo three months simple imprisonment. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

Prosecution Case 4. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the mother of the victim recorded by S.I. Sarita Kumari, SHO, Mahila P.S. Gopalganj on 09.09.2018 at 15:30 Hours at the Mahila P.S. Gopalganj. In her fardbeyan (Exhibit '1/1'), the informant (PW-1) has stated that on 08.09.2018 at about 04:00 PM, her daughter came crying from 'bathan' which is situated near her house and after much asking, she fell asleep crying. On the next day i.e. 09.09.2018, her daughter told her that yesterday at 03:00 PM, when she was playing near the 'bathan', this appellant came there and took her to his house to boil milk where he closed the door and threatened her to kill with a sword, thereafter, committed wrong act with her. The informant alleged that the appellant threatened her not to tell this to anyone otherwise he will kill her with sword. Because of this threat, her daughter did not tell her anything last night. The informant alleged that a boy of his village, namely, Raju when heard the crying of her daughter knocked the door of the appellant and when he opened the door, the victim somehow managed to escape. The informant alleged that this appellant committed wrong act with her daughter.

5. On the basis of this fardbeyan, Barauli P.S. Case No. 204 of 2018 dated 09.09.2018 was registered under Sections 376(2) IPC and Section 4/5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act against this appellant. After investigation, police submitted chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 238 of 2018 dated 17.11.2018 under Section 376(2) IPC and Section 4/6/8/10 of the POCSO Act.

Thereafter, vide order dated 17.12.2018, learned trial court took cognizance of the offences under above-mentioned Sections.

6. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, accordingly, vide order dated 02.01.2019, charges were framed under Section 376(2) IPC and Section 5(m)/6 and 9(m)(n)/10 of the POCSO Act.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSMyMzMjMjAyMyMxI04=-cNUjJ4fH2C4=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.