KAMLESH SINGH GOND Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.2.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj in Sessions Trial (Pocso) No.41 of 2015, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) Prosecution case, in brief, is that on the relevant date, the prosecutrix (PW1) was aged about 4 years. On 5.4.2013, between 5 and 6 p.m., she was playing along with her brother Rahul (PW2). At that time, the Appellant came there and gave them Kulfi (ice- cream) and thereafter he took the prosecutrix to his house and closed the door from inside. The prosecutrix started weeping. Her brother Rahul (PW2) tried to get the door opened, but he could not succeed. He went to his mother Lalita (PW8) and told her about the incident. Lalita (PW8) went to the spot. She went to the bathroom of the house. She saw that underwear of her daughter (the prosecutrix) was lying there. The prosecutrix started weeping and told her that the Appellant was caressing her private part. Lalita (PW8) informed about the incident to her nephew, brother and husband. The matter was reported by Lalita vide Ex.P8. Statements of the prosecutrix as well as other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Kamini Rai (PW4). Her report is Ex.P3 in which she found small abrasions over labia majora of the prosecutrix. Redness was present over the wall of fourchette and vagina of the prosecutrix. Hymen was intact. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. Charges were framed against him under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3[1] of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (henceforth 'the Pocso Act') alternatively under Section 5 of the Pocso Act, under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 376(1)[1] of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. In defence, the Appellant examined himself as Defence Witness No.2 and also examined his mother Rampati as Defence Witness No.1 and one Ramnaresh as Defence Witness No.3.