R.C. Khulbe, J
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant U/s 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.07.2014 passed by learned
Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Nainital in Sessions Trial No.06 of 2014, State Vs. Himanshu Sharma, convicting and sentencing the
appellant three years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 363 IPC, five years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.10,000/- under Section 366-A IPC, two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 IPC and ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with a
fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.12.2013 at about 6:15 a.m. complainant-Ranjit Singh Rawat gave a complaint to Police Station-Lalkuan stating
therein that he is resident of Village-Talaur, P.O. Dewal, District Chamoli. Due to ill-health on 05.12.2013 he came for treatment to his relatives in
Indranagar-2, Bindukhatta, Lalkuan. His daughter Km. Sonam Rawat, aged about 14 years, who is studying in class VIIIth also came along with him
to take care of him. Suddenly on 07.12.2013 his daughter disappeared and after lot of efforts to locate her it came to the know that she has been
kidnapped by a boy known as Himanshu Sharma, who works in Dewal.
3. On the basis of written information, FIR No.150 of 2013 was lodged on 11.12.2013 at 6:15 a.m. at P.S. Lal Kuan, Haldwani, District-Nainital, under
Sections 363, 366 IPC against Himanshu Sharma and investigation was conducted.
4. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused Himanshu Sharma under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and
Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
5. The case was, accordingly, committed to the court of Sessions after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
6. Learned Sessions Court, accordingly, framed the charges against the appellant under Sections 363,366-A, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, namely, PW1 Ranjit Singh Rawat (Complainant), PW2 Km. Sonam
Rawat (victim), PW3 Padima @ Padma Devi, PW4 Khimuli Devi (mother of victim), PW5 Kamal Singh Bhandari (Cousin of Victim), PW6 Dr.
Manju Rawat, PW7 S.S. Bhardwaj (Senior Pathologist), PW8 Lady Const. Krishna Ganghariya and PW9 S.I. Sanjay Joshi (I.O.)., who fully
supported the prosecution case and the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.
8. After completion of evidence, statements of the appellant and other accused persons were recorded U/s 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he denied the
allegations and claimed innocence. However, stated that he has not made any phone call; a false complaint has been registered; he is a married person
and having a son; he and victim Sonam were arrested by the police at Lalkuan Station and brought to Police Station and he has falsely been implicated
in the crime. Though, he has not produced any evidence in defense.
9. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court, vide the judgment, under challenge, convicted
and sentenced the appellant under Sections 363, 366-A, 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Feeling
aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
10. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence available on the record.
11. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Himanshu Sharma fairly submit that the conviction of the appellant, as recorded by
the Court below under Sections 363, 366-A, 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is perfectly justified
as per the evidence recorded before the trial court and he also do not want to lay any challenge on the same; he only confined his prayer to the extent
that the sentenced awarded to the appellant under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is on the higher side and
the imprisonment of 10 years may be reduced to 7 years and fine of Rs.20,000/- may be reduced to Rs.1,000/-.
12. Mr. A.K. Sah, learned A.G.A. for the State argued that there is 7 years minimum imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the
POCSO Act.
13. Considering the fact that the appellant is sole bread earner of his family and the acceptance of the submission of the learned counsel, Mr. Lalit
Sharma that the appellant is languishing in the jail since 11.12.2013, this Court, accordingly, reduce the sentence passed by the learned court below to
a period of 7 years for the offence committed under Section 4 of the POCSO Act with fine of Rs.1000/- only and in default payment of fine, he shall
undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months.
14. The present appeal is partly allowed and thus, stands disposed of. The conviction part of the appellant Himanshu Sharma under Sections 363, 366-
A, 506 IPC is left intact.
15. Lower Court Record be sent back.
16. Let a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the learned Trial Court for information/ compliance.
