AJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused/appellant herein, became charged for commission of an offence punishable, under, Section 363 of the IPC, and, also became charged, for, commission of an offence punishable, under, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short "POCSO" Act). The learned trial Court concerned, made an order of conviction, vis-a-vis, the afore charged offences, and, also sentenced the convict, to, undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years, and, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, for commission, of, an offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC, and, in default of payment of fine amount, he was sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months. He was further sentenced by the learned trial Court, to, undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 10 years, and, to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-, for commission, of, an offence punishable, under, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and, in default of payment of fine amount, he was sentenced, to, undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently, and, the fine amount of Rs.40,000/-, was, ordered by the learned trial Court, to be paid as compensation, to, the victim.

(2.) The convict/accused/appellant herein, becomes aggrieved therefrom, hence, through, casting the extant appeal before this Court, has strived to beget reversal(s) of the afore made conviction, and, the afore consequent therewith sentence(s) hence imposed, upon him, under the afore verdict.

(3.) The genesis of the prosecution story, is, embodied in Ex.PW1/A, exhibit whereof, is, a complaint made by the mother of the victim, to, the SHO Police Station Dharamshala, wherein, she alleges commission, of, offence(s) punishable under Section 363 of the IPC hence by the accused. On anvil of the afore complaint, an FIR came to be recorded by the SHO Police Station, Dharmshala, FIR whereof is embodied, in, Ex.PW8/A. The incriminatory site plan, is, borne in Ex.PW13/D. During the course of investigations into the allegations, carried in the afore alluded FIR, the Investigating Officer concerned, produced the victim/prosecutrix, before the medical practitioner concerned, and, the latter, in, the apposite MLC, and, as becomes embodied in Ex.PW5/B, made an opinion thereon, vis-a-vis, there being a possibility of the victim becoming subjected to sexual intercourse. However, an endorsement is also borne therein, (i) vis-avis, the apposite final opinion qua therewith being made only after, the report of the FSL concerned, is, received. However, after the author of Ex.PW5/B became purveyed, with, the report of the FSL concerned, and, as, embodied in Ex.PW5/Bl, hence, on reading(s) thereof, he made a firm, and, final opinion, vis-a-vis, the victim/prosecutrix becoming subjected to sexual intercourse(s). Moreover, therein echoings are borne, vis-a-vis, the report of the Radiologist disclosing, vis-a-vis, radiological age of the prosecutrix being between 14 to 17 years, and, the dental age of the victim being above 12 years, and, less than 18 years.