-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SAMBODH KUMAR ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB …RESPONDENT Reserved on : December 01, 2025 Pronounced on : February 06, 2026 Whether full judgment is pronounced or operative part thereof : Full CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Harkirat Singh Ghuman, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. R.S. Pandher, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

Appellant–accused has assailed the judgment of conviction dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, whereby he was convicted under Section 376 (2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’). Vide order of sentence dated 24.10.2016, appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eighteen years and to ₹

pay a fine of 10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, under Section 376 (2)(f) IPC read with section 6 of POCSO.

2. Prosecutrix (PW-2) on 21.05.2016 made statement to SI Harmesh Kaur who along with lady constable Kiran Bala and L/ASI Naresh Kumari had visited H.No. 615, Child Helpline, Rupnagar where the prosecutrix aged 10 years along with Braham Dutt and Sunita Bawa were present. In her statement, prosecutrix, daughter of accused Sambodh Kumar asserted to be student of 5^th class in Government Elementary School, Bharatgarh. She stated that her mother had left them one year ago after quarrelling with her father. The prosecutrix along with her siblings used to reside with her father. She stated that she along with her sister used to sleep in one room and her brothers and father used to sleep in the other room. During last three months her father used to enter in the room of prosecutrix and forcibly take off her clothes and his clothes. Whenever the prosecutrix tried to raise alarm the accused threatened her and also gagged her mouth and committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix for three months. He threatened the prosecutrix that if she disclosed this fact to anyone he would kill her. Due to fear the prosecutrix did not disclose the occurrence to anyone. However, due to unbearable pain she left her house and reached Rupnagar where she met Sunita Bawa, member child helpline.

3. After recording of the statement of the prosecutrix, SI Harmesh Kaur had sent ruqa to the police station on basis of which FIR No.50 dated 21.05.2016 u/s 376(2) of IPC r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act was registered with Police Station Kiratpur Sahib against the accused.

4. On 22.05.2016 prosecutrix along with Sunita Bawa was taken to civil hospital and was medically examined by PW-8 Dr. Baljit Kaur. The clothes and swabs collected from the prosecutrix at the time of medical examination were duly sent for chemical examination at the laboratory at Kharar. Statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 23.05.2016. Appellant was arrested on 24.05.2016. He was medically examined on 25.05.2016 by Dr Anand Ghai PW-4.

5. After filing of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., charges under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, were framed against the appellant vide order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ropar. Appellant pleaded not guilty and took the defence of total denial, claiming false implication.

6. Prosecution had examined as many as ten witnesses to prove its case. Prosecutrix appeared as PW-2. Sunita Bawa, team member child helpline, Ropar was examined as PW3. Other witnesses examined by prosecution included PW-4, Dr Anand Ghai who examined the accused; PW8 Dr Baljit Kaur, medical officer, Civil Hospital Anandpur Sahib who conducted medico legal examination of prosecutrix vide MLR Ex.PW-3/A; PW9– Sunaina, medical officer, Gynaecologist Civil Hospital, Anandpur, who had conducted gynaecology test upon prosecutrix