SHARMA SAHANI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above referred appeals are against the common judgment of conviction dated 09.06.2017 and order of sentence dated 14.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions-I-cum-Special Judge under POCSO Act, Bettiah, in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No.118 of 2015, corresponding to SGR No.39 of 2015 and CIS No.14306 of 2015. The learned trial Judge found all the appellants of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1850 of 2017 guilty for offence under Section 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act) and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each. In default of payment of fine further three months imprisonment was ordered.

(2.) On 03.05.2015 at 2:30 PM, the SHO of Nautan Police Station recorded fardbeyan (Exhibit-1) of PW 3 Urmila Devi, the mother of the victim girl, at M.J.R. Hospital, Bettiah. According to FIR of PW 3, on 28.04.2015 the informant had gone to Banaras for her own treatment. In the house only a son and three daughters were there. At Banaras itself, she got telephonic information that when the victim girl, aged about ten years, was alone in the house, on 01.05.2015 at about 3:00 PM appellant Sharma Sahani entered into the house and committed rape against her. On 02.05.2015 when the informant returned to her house she found the victim in a critical condition. She wanted to go to the police station along with the victim. However, appellant Madan Sahani, Munna Sahani, Jagdish Sahani and Nitish Sahani did not allow her to go to the police station saying that this is a family matter and they would settle it in the panchayat. Thereafter, Madan Sahani and others took her as well as to her daughter to Kaithwaliya where the daughter of the informant was hospitalized in a private clinic. The appellants were threatening not to lodge criminal case.

(3.) On the basis of report aforesaid Nautan P.S. Case No.118 of 2015 was registered. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet and the appellants were put on trial. The prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses during trial and the defence produced three witnesses who are extensively referred in the trial Court judgment.