The court affirmed that procedural irregularities do not invalidate convictions if no prejudice is shown, emphasizing the trial court's discretion in adding charges.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The facts of the Prosecution case are that, on 31-03-2022, Exhibit P-1/PW-1, a Complaint was lodged by PW-1, the teacher of the school, where the victim, PW-6 was a Class VIII student. According to PW-1, she was informed by PW-6 that the Appellant had sexually harassed her on 29-03-2022 at around 03.00 p.m. at her residence, by touching her body and breasts. PW-1 then informed the Principal of the school, PW-2 and also lodged Exhibit P1/PW-1. Pursuant thereto, the criminal justice system was set into motion by registration of the case against the Appellant under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, the "POCSO Act"). Investigation by the Investigating Officer (I.O.), PW-15, found prima facie materials against the Appellant under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the "IPC"), read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Charge-Sheet was submitted before the Court of the Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), North Sikkim, at Mangan. The Learned Trial Court framed charge against the Appellant under Section 9(l) of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 10 of the same Act and under Section 354 of the IPC. The Appellant sought a trial after entering a plea of "not guilty" to the charges. Fifteen witnesses furnished by the Prosecution, including the I.O. of the case were examined and thereafter the Appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, the "Cr.P.C."). Pertinently, after the final hearing was concluded the Learned Trial Court added a charge against the Appellant under Section 354B of the IPC, by invoking its powers under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. On being satisfied that no prejudice was caused to either party and both parties having raised no objection to such addition, the charge under Section 354B of the IPC was read over to the Appellant to which he again pleaded innocence and claimed trial. The Learned Trial Court on analyzing the entire evidence on record concluded that the Prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the Appellant, under Section 354 and Section 354B of the IPC and convicted him accordingly. The Appellant was however acquitted of the offence under Section 9(l) of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 10 of the same Act on the age of minority of the victim not being proved, vide its Judgment, dated 05-08-2022, in Sessions Trial (POCSO Act) Case No.08 of 2022 (State of Sikkim vs. Pema Tshering Lepcha @ Mikmar). By the Order on Sentence of the same date, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 354 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-(Rupees five hundred) only. For the offence under Section 354B of the IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees five hundred) only. Both sentences of fine bore default clauses of imprisonment and the period of incarceration were ordered to run concurrently. The fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid as compensation to the minor victim.

2. Aggrieved by the Judgment and the Order on Sentence, the Appellant is before this Court urging that, the charge under Section 354B of the IPC was added rather belatedly when the stage was for pronouncement of Judgment with no opportunity afforded to the Appellant to cross-examine the Prosecution witnesses on the added charge. The charge under Section 354B of the IPC pertains specifically to disrobing of the victim by the Appellant. An opportunity ought to have been extended to the Appellant to defend himself on the fresh charge, in the absence of which, he is prejudiced having been sentenced to suffer a longer period of imprisonment under Section 354B of the IPC without having defended himself for the charge added by the Learned Trial Court. Hence, the impugned Judgment be set aside and the Appellant be acquitted of the charges framed ag