PATNA, India, May 15 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on April 10:
1. The instant Criminal Appeal challenges a judgement, dated 26th of September, 2018, whereby and whereunder, the appellant was convicted under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C. for committing an offence punishable under Sections 363/376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/6/10 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
2. By an order dated 5th of October, 2018, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under Section 363 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 366A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The appellant was further sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 12 years and fine of Rs. 25000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(i) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Further sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 12 years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Further sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 20,000/-. Further sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and fine of Rs. 25000/- for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and further sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. It was also directed that the appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment for 5 months each for nonpayment of fine amount on each count. All the sentences of rigorous imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.
3. In the instant appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence on the following grounds: -
(a) Prosecution failed to bring home the charge against the accused;
(b) No eye-witness to support the case of kidnapping of the minor girl of the informant, and her friend could be examined by the prosecution;
(c) The Investigating Officer failed to ascertain the registration no. and identity of the Scorpio Car, with the help of which the victims were kidnapped.
(d) The prosecution failed to prove the place of illegal confinement of the victims;
(e) Prosecution also failed to prove involvement of three accused persons in the offence as alleged;
(f) The prosecution case is full of contradiction with the evidence; and
(g) The learned Trial Judge held the appellant guilty for the offence only on the basis of statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. without considering the fact that such statement is only corroborative in nature.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSMzMiMyMDE5IzEjTg==-Ed6aw8dVuEE=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
