The sufficiency of evidence and the balancing of punishment with default of payment of fine were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

R.C. Khulbe, J. - The present jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.04.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO, Pithoragarh, in S.S.T. No.13 of 2018, 'State vs. Urba Dutt Bhatt, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant u/s 7/8 POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo three years and six months' imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000 with default stipulation; he was also convicted u/s 342 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months' imprisonment and he was further convicted u/s 506 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year's imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.

2. In short, case of the prosecution is that PW-1 submitted an information Ex.Ka-1 on 28.05.2018 with the Police Station, Jhulaghat, Pithoragarh. On the basis of said information, a Chick FIR Ex.Ka-7 was lodged with the police station; victim was medically examined; accordingly, medical report Ex.Ka-6 was prepared; her statement Ex. Ka-2 was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-10) was submitted. Accordingly, after compliance with the provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C.; the concerned court took the cognizance on 17.07.2018 and charges were framed under Sections 376, 511, 342, 506, 504 IPC and u/s 8/18 POCSO Act. The appellant denied all the allegations and claimed to be tried.

3. To bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution produced PW1-informant (father of victim), PW2 mother of victim, PW3 prosecutrix, PW4 Shushil Chandra Pant, Principal of GIC Pithoragarh, who proved the date of birth certificate of victim Ex.Ka-3, PW5 Dr. Prema, who proved the medical report Ex.Ka.-6, PW6 Constable Mohan Chandra Pandey, PW7 Constable Dinesh Giri, who proved the Chik FIR Ex.Ka-7 and G.D. Ex.Ka-8, PW8 S.I. Sanjay Punia (IO), PW9 S.I. Sushila Arya (IO), who recorded the statements of witnesses and submitted charge-sheet Ex.Ka-10 and PW10 S.I. Megha Sharma (IO).

4. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the evidences and stated that the prosecution produced false evidences against him. However, no evidence was produced in defence.

5. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, by order dated 09.04.2019, the trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of the judgment.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred before this Court.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the State.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that he does not want to argue the case on merits, as the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant based on sufficient material on record; there is no illegality in the impugned judgment, he fairly submitted that as per the jail report the appellant has served the sentence as awarded by the trial court; but the appellant is languishing in jail in default of payment of fine. He lastly submitted that the trial court awarded six months sentence in default of payment of fine, which is in higher side.

9. The learned counsel for the State has no objection for the same.

10. I have also gone through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and come to this conclusion that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant based on proper evidence and there is no infirmity in the impugned findings. The date of birth of the prosecutrix is 06.09.2008, which was duly proved by PW-4 (Principal); the prosecutrix appeared before the trial court as PW-3; she supported the entire incident.

11. From the perusal of the entire evidence, I come to this conclusion that there is sufficient evidence on record against the appellant. The Trial Court rightly convicted him; there is no illegality in the findings. As regard to the sentence in default of payment of fine is concerned, the trial court awarded six months additional imprisonment which