MANOJ MISHRA @ CHHOTKAU Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is before this Court assailing the judgment dated 14.03.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal No.1102/2017. Through the said judgment, the High Court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence ordered to the appellant by the Additional Sessions Court and Special Judge POCSO Act, Bahraich in C.C. No.18/2014. The appellant herein was arrayed as Accused No.4 in the said case.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the conviction and sentence of the appellant is that the father of the prosecutrix filed a written report dated 09.08.2013 at 22:35 hours before the police alleging therein that one Ramasre alias Siri had enticed his daughter aged about 14 years on 02.08.2013 and had taken her away. In the said complaint, it was further alleged that Raksharam, Nangodiya and Manoj Kumar alias Chhotkau i.e. the appellant herein had cooperated with him in the alleged incident. An FIR was lodged in Crime No.625/2013 under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. The prosecutrix was found by the police along with Ramasre alias Siri. She was brought back and subjected to medical examination. The case was investigated and a charge sheet was filed under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC ') as also sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short 'POCSO Act '). The Court had thereafter framed the charges against the accused. On the accused denying the charge, trial was conducted. The father and mother of the prosecutrix were examined as PW­1 and PW­2 respectively, while the prosecutrix herself was examined as PW­3. Dr. Rabia Sultan who had conducted the medical examination on the prosecutrix was examined as PW­4. The Constable Pramod Kumar Shah who had carried the FIR was examined as PW­5 and the Sub­ Inspector Tara Prasad Pandey who had investigated the case was examined as PW­6.

(3.) The trial court having analysed the said evidence which was tendered before it, also taking into consideration the denial put forth by the accused while recording the statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.PC ') had arrived at the conclusion that the charge alleged against the accused was proved. Accordingly the accused were sentenced to (i) 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/­ for the offence under Section 363 IPC; (ii) 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/­ for the offence under Section 366 IPC; (iii) 20 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/­ for the offence under Section 376­D IPC; (iv) 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/­ under Section 506 IPC and (v) 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.7,000/­ for the offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act. The default sentence for non­payment of the fine was also imposed and the sentence for the offence under the said provisions were ordered to run concurrently through the judgment dated 20.05.2015. Through the said judgment one of the accused Raksharam was acquitted on holding that the charges against him were not proved.