AMRESH RAUT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Sec. 389(1) of the Cr.P.C for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction dtd. 15/2/2024 and order of sentence dtd. 16/2/2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum- Special Judge (POCSO), Lohardaga in connection with Special POCSO Case No.30 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Sec. 363, 366, 376(3) of the IPC and under Sec. 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and a fine of Rs.5,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 363 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine further directed to undergo imprisonment for one month, RI for 7 years and a fine of Rs.5,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 366 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine further directed to undergo imprisonment for one month, RI for 20 years and a fine of Rs.25,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 376(3) of the IPC and in default of payment, further directed to undergo imprisonment for three months and all the sentences will run concurrently. However, no further sentence is awarded to the appellant under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act in view of Sec. 42 of POCSO Act.

(2.) It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that it is a case where the FIR has been lodged after lapse of 13 days and the testimony of the victim, who has been examined as PW1 during the trial, has not supported by the testimony of the medical witness, the doctor, who has been examined as PW7.

(3.) The second argument has been advanced on behalf of the applicant that the victim has not supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C.