SUBAL @ BHOLA PATRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment and order of conviction dated 22nd September, 2015 and 23rd September, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Sessions Trial No. 13 (04) of 2014 arising from Sessions Case No. 545 (Sept) 2013 convicting the appellant under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act'), and sentencing the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years and with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for another three years under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act').

(2.) The short fact involved in this case is based on a written complaint made by one Maniklal Jana with the Officer-in-charge women Police Station at Contai, Purba Medinipur on 24th May, 2013 on the basis of which the above-mentioned P.S. Case No. 19/13 dated 24.05.2013, was initiated under Section 376(2)(h) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. According to the complaint case on 23rd May, 2013 the victim aged about 11 years was sleeping alone in a newly constructed Palaghar beside their residence belonging to Dipak Panda, the owner of the fishery. Subal @ Bhola Patra was engaged by Dipak Panda to look after the said fishery accused Subal @ Bhola Patra committed the offence on the minor girl and accordingly the complaint was lodged by his father on 24.05.2013.

(3.) According to the complainant incident occurred on 23rd May, 2013 at about 2:30 pm. According to the prosecution case the accused was caught by the local people and was handed over to the police. Prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Charge was framed against the accused, it was read over and explained to him but the accused pleaded not guilty and prayed for to be tried. In the examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused had the only plea of innocence. On behalf of the accused, the learned Advocate appearing before us submitted that the entire prosecution case has been framed against the accused because of some previous enmity between the complainant and the owner of the fishery in regard to a passage leading to the Palaghar itself in between the complainant's residence and the fishery. The accused is only an employee of the owner of the fishery and he has nothing to do with the stretch of passage over which there was a dispute between the owner of fishery and the complainant.