ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The sole appellant in this case is seeking setting aside of the judgment of conviction dated 05.04.2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 12.04.2023 (in short called the ‘impugned order’), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Vaishali at Hajipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in POCSO Gr. No. 58 of 2022 (arising out of Sonepur (Hajipur) Rail P.S. Case No. 212 of 2022).

3. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has been pleased to convict the appellant for the offences under Sections 376(3)/363 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 4/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’). Having convicted the appellant under these provisions, the learned trial Court has ordered the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years for the offence under Section 376(3) of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year more. Further, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 363 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more. For the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the appellant has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more. Against for the offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences are to run concurrently.

Prosecution Story

4. The prosecution case is based on the written information submitted by the father of the victim, who was himself posted at Sub-Inspector of Police in Rail P.S Sonepur in the district of Vaishali. In his written information dated 13.09.2022 giving rise to Sonepur (Hajipur) Rail P.S. Case No. 212 of 2022 under Sections 363/366A and Section 4/8 of POCSO Act (Exhibit-5), the informant has alleged that he resides with his wife and his daughter (X) aged about 15 years, in a government quarter situated in the Hajipur Station Campus. He further alleged that on the night of 06.09.2022, after having dinner, the informant’s wife and his daughter went for sleeping and he went for duty. On 07.09.2022, the informant’s wife called him and informed him that their daughter was missing and that her mobile number was switched off. After receiving this information, the informant along with his wife, started searching for their daughter. During the search of the room of his daughter, they searched her diary and found that a mobile number 7717794766 was written in it with the name Rajdeep Thathera (the appellant) aged about 20 years, S/o Late Nepal Thathera, R/o Village Potka Thatheri Sai, P.S. Chakradharpur, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. On inquiry, the informant’s wife told him that for the last few days their daughter had been talking with the said Rajdeep and there is an apprehension that the said Rajdeep (appellant) kidnapped his daughter for the purpose of marriage.

5. On the basis of this written information, FIR being Sonepur (Hajipur) Rail P.S. Case No. 212 of 2022 dated 13.09.2022 was registered under Sections 363/366A IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act against this appellant. After investigation, upon completion charge-sheet was filed against the accused- appellant, showing sufficient materials to proceed against him and police sub