SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 21.7.2015, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2014, whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 5(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act) read with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section 506 IPC for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim below 18 years of age repeatedly and also for threatening to eliminate her in case of disclosure, was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 5(1) of the POCSO Act read with Section 376 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The accused was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 506 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that PW-2, prosecutrix was 15 years of age in the year 2013. Her date of birth was 7.7.1998. PW-2 prosecutrix disclosed to her mother Smt. Champa Devi, PW-1 on 29.11.2013 that she was sexually assaulted by the accused two times one month ago. PW-2, prosecutrix was having low mental capabilities. The accused used to show a currency note of Rs. 100/- to PW-2 prosecutrix and he also used to show her obscene movies on his mobile phone. The matter could not be reported to the police since Pradhan of Gram Panchayat pressurized the parents of PW-2 prosecutrix for compromise. The complaint Ext. PW-1/A was filed before the SDM, Sarkaghat and FIR Ext. PW-14/A was registered in the Police Station.

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