YOGESH BHARTI @ JUGNU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2016 passed by the learned Upper Session Judge, Raigarh, District-Raigarh(CG) in CNR No.CGRG04-000099-2014/2014 POCSO Case No.4/2015, convicting the accused/appellants under Section 376(2)(i), 377 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') & Sections 6 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act') and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/- & R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.200/- plus default stipulations.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is this that two days prior to 7.10.2014 the appellant by taking the two victims in his influence, took them to a lonely place inside a primary school. It is alleged that the appellant disrobed both the girls and licked their private parts and thereafter he also made the girls to lick his private part. The victims later on informed about this incident to mother of victim PW-1 Laxmi Namdev PW-11, who informed about this incident to complainant Vishnu Namdev PW-10. As the girls were not acquainted with the name of the appellant, Vishnu Namdev took the victims in the street, where the appellant was painting the house of Nohar Singh Patel(PW-5), who was immediately identified by the victim girls. FIR Ex.P-5 was lodged by Vishnu Namdev on 7.10.2014. The victim girls aged about 4 &4 1/2 years respectively, were medically examined and their statements were recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. Other investigative procedures were made and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.

(3.) Appellant was charged with offences punishable under Sections 376 r/w 511 & 377 of IPC and Sections 4 & 8 of the POCSO Act. The appellant denied the charges framed against him and prayed for trial. On completion of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness has been examined in defence.