VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Appellant Vinod Kumar impugning his conviction under Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 read with Section 354/341 IPC vide judgment dated 16.07.2014 as well as sentence awarded to him vide order dated 22.07.2014.

(2.) THE Appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine of Rs.2000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 15 days for committing the offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act. However, no separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under Sections 354/341 IPC.

(3.) ON behalf of Appellant, Mr.A.K.Chaubey, Advocate submitted that the Appellant was bed roll boy in Brahamputra Mail in the Compartment in which the Complainant (PW -2) alongwith her daughter (PW -1) was travelling on berth No.36 and 42. Learned counsel further submitted that there appears to be some confusion/misunderstanding on the part of PW -1 and PW -2 which has resulted in apprehension of the Appellant and registration of FIR against him. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that PW -1 'A' ­ the child victim has categorically stated that she had not seen the person who touched her at the time when she was sleeping. However, as per PW -1, the Appellant had touched her breast and hips when she entered washroom and Appellant also entered the washroom but it is clear improvement over the version recorded earlier in the FIR as no such allegations were made by PW -1 and PW -2 at that time. Further had there been any wrong committed by the Appellant when PW -1 was in the washroom, he would not have returned alongwith her to the berth where her mother was sleeping. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant had wrongly been convicted under Section 10 of POCSO Act ignoring that the only act attributed to the Appellant was that he tried to chase and stop her way when PW -1 was going to washroom and at that time, she pushed the Appellant aside and returned to the berth where her mother was sleeping. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant that at the most it can be a case of sexual harassment, hence matter needs to be examined from the angle as to whether the act attributed to the Appellant is covered by Section 10 of POCSO Act or some lesser offence is made out.