IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Jail Appeal No.03 of 2019

Umashankar @ Chhotu

….. Appellant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

….Respondent

Ms. Sarita Bist, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant.

Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Hon’ble 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

2

and u/s ¾ 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.

3

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 infir