The court upheld the conviction under the POCSO Act based on sufficient evidence but considered the time already served by the appellant in determining the default imprisonment period.

JUDGMENT

R. C. Khulbe, J. - The present jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.03.2018 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO, Dehradun, in S.S.T. No.41 of 2016, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant u/s 4 POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo seven years' R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000 with default stipulation.

2. In short, case of the prosecution is that an information Ex. Ka-4 was submitted by the informant with the Police Station, Doiwala, Dehradun on 11.04.2016 about the incident. On the basis of said information, a Chick FIR Ex.Ka-6 was lodged with the police station; accordingly, G.D. Ex.Ka-7 was prepared; the appellant was arrested on 14.04.2016; accordingly, recovery memo Ex.Ka-9 was prepared; the prosecutrix was also recovered from the possession of the accused- appellant and was produced before the Magistrate; her statement Ex.Ka-1 were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; she was medically examined; accordingly, medical report Ex. Ka-2 and supplementary medical report Ex. Ka-3 were prepared. After investigation, charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-5) was submitted. Accordingly, after compliance of provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C.; the concerned court took the cognizance on 13.07.2016 and charges were framed under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and u/s 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- prosecutrix, PW2 Dr. Mamta Negi, who prepared the medical report of the prosecutrix, PW3 Anil Kumar (witness of the recovery memo), PW4 father of the prosecutrix, PW5 S.I. Hem Lata, who conducted the investigation, PW6 Mahadev Prasad Dobhal, PW7 Laxman Singh Kathait.

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 15.03.2018, the trial court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable u/s 4 of POCSO Act, 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 Amicus Curiae for the appellant that she does not want to argue the case on merits as the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant based on sufficient material on record; she fairly submitted that the matter relates to the year 2016; there is no criminal antecedent against him; the trial Court convicted and sentenced him seven years' rigorous imprisonment against which the appellant has already served more than six years, hence the Court may kindly consider it appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone by him. She 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 appearing for the State also submits that the appellant was arrested on 14.04.2016 and the appellant has already served more than six years in jail.

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. Since the matter relates to the year 2016; as per the school leaving certificate the prosecutrix was below the age of 18 years at the time of occurrence; as per the medical report her hymen was found torn. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the accused on 14.04.2016; at the time of recovery PW-3 Anil Kumar was also present; he has proved the recovery memo Ex. Ka-9.

11. From the perusal of the entire evidence, I come to this