CHHEDI PASWAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 16.08.2017 and order on sentence dated 16.08.2017 passed by the ASJ (Spl. Court of POCSO Act), East, Karkardooma Courts, whereby the appellant was convicted of the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and under Sections 342/363/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant was sentenced to (a) undergo ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of six months for committing the offence under Section 376 of the IPC; (b) undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC; and (c) undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 342 of the IPC. All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The appellant contends that the impugned judgment dated 16.08.2017 ought to be set aside by this Court, since it does not extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant in view of inconsistencies in the testimonies of various witnesses. The appellant contends that he was implicated as an afterthought and further, the MLC of the victim shows that her hymen was normal and the doctor, who was examined for the prosecution, (PW13) had confirmed that the hymen could be ruptured for other reasons as well. Further, the appellant contends that the victim was actually raped by PW-7 (Ashish Kumar) and not by the appellant.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that a missing person's complaint was lodged on 11.02.2013 by the mother of the victim (who, at the material time, was thirteen years old). She stated that the victim had gone to the market on 10.02.2013 at about 08:00 pm but had not returned back. Thereafter, an FIR under Section 363 of the IPC was registered. Due to certain suspicion, the factory premises located in front of the residence of the victim, in which the appellant resided, was searched. The victim was found in the said premises wrapped in a blanket (loi). The appellant was arrested and was charged with the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 363/342/376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial.