MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15/16.7.2014 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Sessions Judge, Nainital, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 377 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years alongwith a fine of Rs.20,000/-. He has been further convicted under Section 323 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. He has been further convicted under Section 506 of I.P.C. and has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. It was directed that all the sentences were run concurrently. The appellant was further convicted under Section 6 of POCSO Act and was directed to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Prosecution story in brief is that a report at P.S. Haldwani was lodged by PW1 with the averments that he is resident of Haldwani and is working as Labourer in Mandi, Haldwani since 16-17 years. It is stated that his son was working with the accusedappellant for the last one year. His son told him that accused-Mohammed used to assault him and also committed unnatural sex by giving threats for the last five months and threatened him of dire consequences if he disclose to anyone. On the basis of same, F.I.R. No. 38 of 2014 was registered against accused-Mohammad in respect of offences punishable under Sections 377 & 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act. Investigation of the case was carried out and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 377, 506, 323 of I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

(3.) On receipt of charge sheet, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. After hearing the parties, the charges under Section 377, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act were framed against the accused. The charges were read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On denial of guilt, the prosecution got examined P.W.1 complainant/father of the victim (name withheld), P.W.2 victim (name withheld), P.W.3 brother of the complainant(name withheld), P.W.4 Dr. Vipin Pant, P.W.5 Constable Deep Chander Joshi and P.W.6 S.I. Shanti Kumar Gangwar (Investigating Officer). Thereafter, oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he stated that he has falsely been implicated in the case due to animosity. However, in defence Shiv Kumar was examined as DW1 and appellant examined himself as DW2. The trial court, after hearing the parties and perusal of evidence, by the impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant Mohammad, as above. Feeling aggrieved, he has preferred this appeal.