LAWS(CAL)-2018-9-178

SANJIB @ CHOTO BAG Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On September 28, 2018
Sanjib @ Choto Bag Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arose out of an order of conviction dated 29th August, 2017 and sentence dated 30th August, 2017 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in Sessions Trial no. XVI(IX) of 2015 arising out of Sessions Case no. 01(04) of 2015 (Special), convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default of payment, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The fact of the case as narrated against the accused person on the basis of the complaint lodged by the father of a minor girl is that on 2nd April, 2015 at noon the accused person allured his daughter with a mango and took her on the roof of their house. He removed her pant and inserted his hand into the private part of his daughter. The accused person raped her against her will and threatened her with dire consequence. Thereafter, the complainant informed the incident to the local police and went to the house of the accused, where the family members of the accused tried to assault him and threatened him if the matter would be disclosed before the police, he would be killed.

(3.) On the basis of the written complaint, Krishnagar Women P.S. Case no. 54 of 2015 dated 3rd April, 2015 was initiated against the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Investigation was started and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused person under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, as the Court was designated and empowered by the provision of Section 33(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012 as Special Court to try the case expeditiously. On 23rd September, 2015 the accused person was produced before the Court and the contention of the charge was explained to him, which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.