ARVIND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and orders dated 27.02.2016 and 01.03.2016, passed in Sessions Trial No.186 of 2014, State vs. Arvind Kumar, passed by the learned Fast Track Court/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO, District Haridwar. By the impugned judgment and order the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and Section 5(i)(m)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short the "POCSO Act"?). The appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 5(i)(m)/6 of the POCSO Act with a fine of Rs.50,000/- . In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of five months.

(2.) Briefly stated, according to the prosecution, PW2 the victim girl, aged 10 years used to take tuition from the appellant. On 26.04.2014 at about 12:00 noon, the appellant called PW2, the victim girl in his house for tuition; when PW2 the victim girl reached the house of the appellant, he disrobed her and did galat kaam with her. PW2 the victim girl returned to her house and revealed it to her mother. Her father was not at home. When he returned, he was informed about it and a report of the incident was lodged on 30.04.2014 at 10:00 a.m. Based on it, case crime no.56 of 2014 under Sections 376 IPC and 3 read with 4 of POCSO Act was registered. Investigation was carried out. On 01.05.2014 statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code"?). The victim girl was medically examined on 30.04.2014 by PW4 Dr. P.R. Pandey. During investigation, the clothes of the victim girl as well as the accused were taken in custody by the investigating officer and sent for Forensic Science examination but, nothing was detected from those clothes. After investigation charge sheet under Section 376 IPC and 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act was submitted in the court. Cognizance was taken. On 09.07.2014 charges under Section 376 IPC and 5(i)(m)/6 of POCSO Act were framed against the appellant, to which he denied and claimed trial.

(3.) In order to prove the case, prosecution examined total 7 witnesses, namely, PW1 father of the victim girl, PW2 the victim girl, PW3 mother of the victim girl, PW4 Dr. P.R. Pandey, PW5 Constable Manoj Gairola, PW6 Constable Anubha Rawat and PW7 S.I. Mahendra Singh Rana.