BHAGIRATH DHANGAL Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved with the Judgment of conviction and Order on Sentence, dated 29-11-2018 and 30-11-2018 respectively, in Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case No.30 of 2017, the Appellant is before this Court. The Learned Trial Court, vide the impugned Judgment convicted the Appellant of the offence under Section 9(m), 9(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, POCSO Act) and Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, IPC). The Appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, each, under Sections 9(m) and 9(l) of the POCSO Act and for the offence under Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only. Default clauses of imprisonment were also prescribed and the sentences of imprisonment ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts, as they emerge, are that on 09-07-2017, at around 2100 hours, Exhibit 2, the FIR was lodged by P.W.2, the father of the victim, alleging that on 08-07-2017, at around 4 p.m., when the victim, his daughter, had gone to the shop of the Appellant to buy Cigarettes, the Appellant put his hand inside his daughters clothes and fondled her chest. The child returned home crying and narrated the incident to her mother P.W.3 and her aunts P.W.4 and P.W.5, who then informed P.W.2. P.W.2 in turn enquired about the incident from the victim and came to learn that apart from the instant incident she had also been previously molested by the Appellant, hence the request seeking appropriate legal action.

(3.) Investigation into the matter revealed that the Appellant aged about 74 years old was the neighbour of the victim aged about nine years, a student of Class III. Pursuant to the complaint the victim was subjected to medical evidence which corroborated her statement. Investigation thus established the allegations made out against the Appellant. Charge-Sheet was submitted against the Appellant under Sections 341/354(A) of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The Learned Trial Court framed Charge under Sections 9(m), 9(l) of the POCSO Act and Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC. On the plea of "not guilty" by the Appellant, the Prosecution sought to establish its case by examining thirteen witnesses. On closure of Prosecution evidence the Appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."). In a bid to disprove the Prosecution case, the Appellant examined himself, his daughter and a co-villager as D.W.1, 2 and 3 respectively. On consideration of the entire evidence on record, the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence were pronounced.