YAGYA DUTT Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 26.9.2014 and 27.9.2014, respectively, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2013, whereby the appellant -accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under Ss. 376, 366 -A, 506 IPC read with Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act), has been convicted and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/ - under Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. He was also sentenced to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/ - for offence punishable under Sec. 506 Part II, IPC and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The accused was acquitted of the charges under Ss. 363 and 366 IPC. Since the POCSO Act is a special enactment, therefore, charge under Sec. 376 IPC merged under Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 10.8.2013, complainant Babu Ram, resident of Village Kohla submitted a complaint to the SHO concerned, to the effect that his daughter PW -2 (name withheld) aged around 17 years on 2.8.2013 left for the Government School, Bijhar where she was studying in 10th standard. She had not returned home and on inquiry from Physical Education Teacher, it was informed that she had not visited the school on the relevant date. She was searched out in his relations' house. He came to know that on 4th and 5th August, 2013, she was seen roaming in Sector 43, Chandigarh. Thereafter, he alongwith his brother -in -law Mohinder visited Chandigarh Police, but it was informed that she had boarded the bus for Hamirpur. On receipt of the written complaint, the case was registered and investigation was carried out. The copy of the birth certificate was obtained, according to which, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 30.10.1996. The accused was arrested. The victim was medically examined at RH Hamirpur. Her vaginal swabs and slides were retained and got analyses. During the course of investigation/trial, PW -2 prosecutrix delivered a female child and was adopted by one Attri Devi. On the request of the police, the doctor retained the blood samples of victim, accused and newly born female child for DNA profile. PW -2 prosecutrix is the biological mother and accused is biological father of newly born female baby Kanak. The statement of the victim was also recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. by the JMIC, Barsar. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 23 witnesses. The accused was also examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. He pleaded innocence. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.