The court has the discretion to alter the sentence based on the circumstances, and in this case, the court took a lenient view due to the appellant having already served the entire sentence.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 15.01.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge-POCSO, Dhanbad, in Spl. (POCSO) Case No.82 of 2019, arising out of Topchanchi P.S. Case No.54 of 2019, whereby and where under, the sole appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 8 of the POCSO Act and further he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 4 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo additional imprisonment for 2 months.

2. The prosecution case arose in the wake of fardbeyan of informant Mamta Devi, which is recorded by P.S.I. Premkumar Tudu Topnchanchi P.S. on 24.06.2019 at 17:30 hours at P.M.C.H Dhanbad in gynaecology ward bed no. 06. Informant Mamta Devi alleged that on 24/6/2019 at about 9:00 AM in the morning, she was cleaning utensils of her house. Her two years old daughter was playing. Accused Appu Kumar Das, a relative of informant was there, he has taken the child in his arm and took her in T.V. room. The informant heard the crying of her daughter, then she rushed there. She tried to pacify the child but she continued crying.

Informant has noticed that the child was wearing half pant but now she was without her half pant and blood was oozing out from victim's private part and there was swelling over body of the child. She informed the matter to her husband. She called ambulance and brought victim to Health Care Centre and from there she was sent to PMCH for better treatment.

Thereafter FIR was lodged and criminal law was set at motion. Accordingly, the present case Topchanchi P.S. Case No. 54/2019 dated 24.08.2019, corresponding to Spl. POCSO Case No. 82/2019 was instituted for the offences u/s 376(1) of I. P. C. and u/s 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused Appu Kumar Das. On 23.08.2019 cognizance was taken against accused person U/s 376-AB of I.P.C. and U/s 6 of POCSO Act. Charge was framed against accused person namely Appu Kumar Das 376 (A) (B) of IPC and under section 8 POCSO Act by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge 1st cum-Spl. Judge (POCSO) Dhanbad, to which he denied charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and the learned court below after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge.

3. Heard learned Defence counsel Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned APP Mr. Fahad Aalam appearing on behalf of the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of appellant

4. At the outset the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that he does not want to argue this case on merit and confines his argument only on the point of sentence. It has been pointed out by learned defence counsel that the appellant having been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, he was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 4 years and out of the awarded sentence of imprisonment, he has already served in jail for more than three and half years. Further it has also been pointed out that the sole appellant was also imposed with a sentence of fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousand) and he is ready to make the payment and therefore it is urged on behalf of the appellant that let the judgment of conviction be upheld and order of sentence be altered to the effect the sentence of imprisonment for a term of the period already undergone by him and further sentence to fine to a sum of Rupees of Rs.10,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousand)

Arguments advanced on behalf of State

5. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that it is a serious offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and since the learned defence counsel does not want to argue this case on merit and therefore let the order of conviction be upheld and further it is submitted that because of seriousn