The recoverability of fines, including compensation, even after the default sentence has been served, as established in the case of Kumaran v. State of Kerala & Anr.

JUDGMENT

Tirthankar Ghosh, J. - The present appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 27th February, 2018 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, First Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas in Special Case no. 31 of 2017, wherein the learned Trial Court was pleased to convict the appellant under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-, out of which 90% amount was to be paid to the victim as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in default of payment he would have to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months more.

2. The initiation of the case relate to a written complaint under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 registered against the appellant vide Entally PS case no. 327 dated 06.07.2017.

3. The allegations in the written complaint were to the effect that the de facto complainant's daughter, aged about 3 years 10 months was sexually assaulted by the appellant on 05.07.2017 at the bathroom of Mahabir Institute of Education and Research situated at 17/1 Canal Street, wherein the appellant with his hand touched the vagina, for which the instant case was registered.

4. The Investigating Agency after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The learned Court after compliance with the provisions relating to supply of documents upon the accused was pleased to frame charges under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant/accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon the oral evidence of 8 witnesses namely, PW1, 'X', victim child; PW2, 'Y', mother of the victim child and the de facto complainant; PW3 'Z' the father of the victim child; PW4, Sanjib Sen, an acquaintance; PW5, Gerald Gomes, Principal of Mahabir Institute of Education and Research; PW6, Tarekh Ahmed, acquaintance of the father of victim; PW7, Dr. Palash Paul and PW8, SI Sayen Biswas, Investigating Officer.

6. The prosecution also relied upon number of documents which included the signature on the statement of the victim child under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure marked as Ext.1 series; written complaint marked as Ext.2; Statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. marked as Ext.3; copy of attendance sheet marked as Ext.4; Medical Report of victim child marked as Ext.5; formal FIR marked as Ext.6 and rough sketch map marked as Ext.7.

7. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that he is not interested to pursue the appeal as the appellant has served out the sentence and has been released. Consequently this Court had no other option but to engage Mr. Somopriya Chowdhury learned advocate for conducting the appeal on behalf of the appellant in view of the nature of the sentence passed by the learned Trial Court.

8. The learned trial Court on an appreciation of the evidence of the victim child 'X', her mother PW2 'Y' and her father PW3 'Z' observed as follows:

'As the evidence of prosecutrix does not full of discrepancies and the story of aggravated sexual assault was clearly divulged by the victim herself before the Court of Law, who was at the relevant point of time aged about three years ten months, inspired the active confidence of the Court. The victim was a minor girl of three years ten months and her statement is very much acceptable and it was duly corroborated by the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. A minor girl of three years ten months came before the court of law and gave statement before the Learned Magistrate about the aggravated sexual assault caused by the accused. So this factum can not be disbelieved. Subsequently mother and father of the victim narrated the entire incident before the police station. Moreover there is nothing to show in the evidence of the victim that the e