The court considered the evidence and the appellant's personal circumstances in reaching its decision on conviction and sentencing, highlighting the importance of balancing justice with individual circumstances.

JUDGMENT

R. C. Khulbe, J. - This jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.07.2018, passed by the F.T.C/Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ADJ, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2016, State vs. Robin Biswas whereby the learned trial court has convicted the appellant under section 363 IPC and sentenced him three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default of which, appellant to undergo further six months' rigorous imprisonment . He has been convicted under section 366A IPC and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 6,000/- in default of which he has to undergo further six months' rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted under section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of which he has to undergo further one year's rigorous imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the PW1- informant submitted a report (Ex. A1) with Police Station Raipur, Dehradun. On the basis of said report, chick FIR (Ex. A8) was lodged on 22.11.2015 at P.S. Raipur, District Dehradun against the accused/appellant. The statement of the prosecutrix (Ex.A2) under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. She was medically examined by the Government Doctor. The medical report (Ex. A4) is on record. The accused was arrested, and accordingly, recovery memo (Ex. A5) was prepared, After the investigation, charge sheet (Ex. A9) was submitted . The court concerned took cognizance on 18.02.2016 and after compliance of provision of section 207 Cr.P.C. the charges under sections 363, 366A and 376 IPC and under section 3/4 of the POCSO Act were framed. The appellant denied the allegation and claimed to be tried.

3.

4. To Prove Its Case, The Prosecution Produced Pw1-Informant, Pw2 Mother Of The Prosecutrix, Pw3 Prosecturix, Pw4 Pradeep Kumar, Pw5 Dr. Uttam Singh, Pw6 S.I. Radhika Nabiyal, Who Investigated The Matter Initially, Pw7 Dr. Beena Singh , Who Prepared Medical Report, And P.W. 8 S.I. Ravindra Singh Negi, Who Investigated The Matter, Recorded The Statement Of The Witnesses And After Completion Of The Investigation, Submitted The Charge Sheet.

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the evidence and stated that the prosecution produced false evidence against him. In defence, no evidence was produced.

6. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para no.1 of the judgment above. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred this criminal appeal through jail.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned for the State through video conferencing and perused the entire evidence available on record.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that she does not want to argue the case on merit because the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant based on evidence. She fairly submitted that the matter relates to the year 2015 and the appellant no criminal antecedent. He is the only bread earner of his family. He has already served about six years imprisonment and submitted that the Court, while upholding appellant's conviction, may consider to alter the sentence awarded to the appellant and reduce it to the extent of period already undergone.

9. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that the matter relates to the year 2015. The minimum punishment prescribed under section 4 of the POCSO Act is seven years and seven years punishment is sufficient.

10. I have also gone through the evidence on record and came to this conclusion that the trial Court has convicted the appellant based on sufficient evidence, as produced by the prosecution. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned findings regarding conviction. The appellant is the only bread earner of his family; he does not have any criminal antecedents in his past life; he is permanent