IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that inconsistencies in a victim's testimony, particularly regarding voluntariness in statements, can lead to the dismissal of charges under the POCSO Act, while still allowing for convictions under IPC provisions if supported by sufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

NAVNEET KUMAR, J.

Heard learned counsel Mr. Mahesh Tiwari appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

2. This appeal is, directed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.11.2016 and order of sentence dated 18.11.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamtara in S.C./S.T. Case No. 1 of 2016, arising out of Kundahit P.S. Case No. 44 of 2015 lodged on 19.05.2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 517 of 2015, registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 504, 354-B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(iv) (x) (xi) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, whereby and where under the learned Trial Court has been pleased to hold the appellant guilty for having committed offences under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 10 of the POCSO Act and has further been pleased to sentence him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 506 Indian Penal Code. The appellant has further been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act along with a fine amount of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the victim as compensation. The learned trial Court has further been pleased to direct that in case of default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Further the learned Trial Court has been pleased to acquit the appellant under Sections 376 (1), 504 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(x) (xi) (xii) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocity) Act. The learned Judge has been pleased to hold that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. The prosecution story arose in the wake of written information of the victim girl/prosecutrix addressed to the Officer-In-Charge Kundahit wherein she stated that she was minor girl and was studying in Class-IX. She has further stated that on 19.05.2015 at 10:00 A.M. when she was returning to her home after attending her tuition class and in this course on the way, she went to the shop of accused Pramod Dutta @ Ludu Dutta for purchasing chips of Cell Phone. The accused took her into a room by seducing her and proposed to marry with her and told that he loves her. She denied his proposal, whereupon he started to do forcibly and threw her on Chowki and threatened her not to cry, otherwise, he will kill her. He pressed her neck and assaulted her, but she raised alarm. Then he left her and warned her not to disclose the matter. On her hulla, some persons gathered there. On the basis of written report of the prosecutrix, Kundahit P.S. Case No. 44 of 2015, registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code and 3 (iv) (x) (xi) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered against the accused. After completion of investigation, the I.O. charge-sheeted the accused for committing the offence under Sections 376(1), 323, 504, 506,341 of the Indian penal Code and Section 3 (iv) (x) (xi) ST/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and accordingly the cognizance was taken by the learned A.C.J.M., Jamtara and case was committed to the court of Special Judge for trial. After hearing on the point of charge, the accused was charged under Sections 323, 504, 506 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 3 (1) (xi) (xii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4. The learned Court below after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.11.2016 and order of sentence dated 18.11.2016 which is under challenge.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant-

5. At the outset it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on extraneous ground without any basis of evidence and the impugned judgment of conviction