HARI OM @ DHOLA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is instituted against judgment and order dated 20.10.2014, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (I), Rohtak, in Sessions Case No. 129 of 2013, vide which appellant Hari Om @ Dhola was charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Sections 376- D, 452 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the POCSO Act). He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 376-D IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 452 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 14.6.2013 Pawan Kumar had lodged a complaint with ASI Surender to the effect that he was married and residing separately from his brother. He had four daughters. Eldest was of 8 years. Younger to her was 6 years. Third daughter was of 4 years and the youngest was 1 year old. His one sister was married at Kalanaur. He had gone to attend the Tehrvi of her husband along with his wife, brother and parents. When they came back in the evening, the eldest daughter (prosecutrix) while crying told her mother that in their absence at about 4.00 P.M. Pardeep @ Kuka came to their house and after removing her underwear lied upon her and committed wrong act (Accused Pardeep @ Kuka was later on declared juvenile). She was suffering from severe pain and wept loudly. Thereafter, the accused fled away from the spot. In these circumstances, the complaint was lodged. The case was registered. Medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix was conducted. However, on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 22.6.2013, name of appellant Hari Om @ Dhola was also included in commission of alleged offence. The appellant was arrested and Section 376-D IPC was added. Medical examination of both the accused was also got conducted. Investigation was completed and challan was put up after completion of all the codal formalities.

(3.) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses. The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has denied the case of the prosecution. In defence, the accused examined two witnesses. The juvenile was tried separately. Appellant was convicted and sentenced, as noticed above. Hence, the present appeal.