Sikkim High Court
State Of Sikkim vs Sashidhar Sharma on 30 September, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 SK 54
Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai
Bench: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, Meenakshi Madan Rai
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
DATED: 30.09.2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIVISION BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crl. Appeal No. 04 of 2016
Appellant : State of Sikkim
versus
Respondent : Sashidhar Sharma
Appeal under Section 378 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Dr. (Ms.) Doma T. Bhutia, Public Prosecutor with Mr. S.K.
Chettri and Ms. Pollin Rai, Assistant Public Prosecutors, for
the Appellant.
Mr. N.B. Khatiwada and Mr. B. Sharma, Senior Advocates
with Ms. Gita Bista and Mr. B.N. Sharma, Advocates, for the
Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J
1. The Appellant is aggrieved with the Judgment dated 31.10.2015, in Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case No.03 of 2015 (State of Sikkim v. Sashidhar Sharma), acquitting the Respondent of the offences under Section 9(c), 9(l), 9(m) and 9(o), punishable under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act).
2. Learned Public Prosecutor for the Appellant contends that the victim herein is a girl child of eleven years while the Respondent is her Teacher, aged about fifty five Crl. A. No. 04 of 2016 2 State of Sikkim vs. Sashidhar Sharma years. Drawing attention to the evidence furnished by the Prosecution, specifically to that of PW7 the minor victim and PW10, PW11, PW13 and PW14 students of the same School, it is urged that the evidence furnished by the witnesses pertaining to sexual assault of the victim has not been demolished. That, the learned trial Court acquitted the Respondent with the reasoning that from the evidence of the witnesses, it was apparent that there was hostile relationship between the "Bhujel family" and some Panchayat members with the Respondent and his family. That, some complaints regarding the Respondent and his family who were working in the same Primary School, had also been made prior to the alleged incident thus establishing inimical relations. That, in such view of the matter, it would not be proper to convict the Respondent. That, to the contrary, the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses reveal sufficient materials to establish the ingredients of Section 9(c), 9(l), 9(m) and 9(o) of the said Act. That, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") was not taken into consideration when this statement would establish consistency with the statement made by her before PW18, the Gynaecologist, who examined the victim. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned Judgment of acquittal be set aside.
3. Per contra, it was vehemently argued by learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent that there was a delay in Crl. A. No. 04 of 2016 3 State of Sikkim vs. Sashidhar Sharma the lodging of the First Information Report (for short "FIR") which itself lends suspicion to the allegation as the incidents are said to have occurred from the month of August, 2014 but the FIR came to be lodged only in November, 2014 sans explanation. That, the evidence on record clearly indicates discrepancies in the statements of the Prosecution Witnesses with regard to who the Class Monitor was at the relevant time as the victim asserts that she was the Class Monitor but her cross-examination elicited information to the contrary. That, the Medical Report given by PW18 indicates absence of external injuries on the victim as her hymen edges were found intact while the hymen opening admitted only the tip of the small finger thereby ruling out penetrative sexual assault. Exhibit 19, the Medical Report prepared by PW17, the Doctor who first examined the victim also found no signs of sexual assault duly substantiated by the evidence of PW18 the Gynaecologist. The learned trial Court had also correctly observed that if penetrative sexual assault had been committed by the Respondent, old injuries on the victim's genital would have indicated the occurrence of such incidents, or the victim would have informed some members of her family of the offence on account of the pain but this was not so. The learned trial Court has also found that the incidents stated by the victim were uncorroborated. That, it is clear from the conduct of the victim that no sexual assault was committed on her as she could have easily raised an alarm on Crl. A. No. 04 of 2016 4 State of Sikkim vs. Sashidhar Sharma such occurrence as the wife of the Respondent and two Teachers related to the Respondent were working in the same School. That, in fact, it is the mere enmity of the "Bhujel family" which has led to the lodging of a false complaint and all the minor witnesses are either from the said family or related to them. Moreover Exhibit D1(a) and Exhibit D2(a), also supports the contention of the Counsel for the Respondent that some villagers were against the Respondent. It was next contended that as the age of the victim has remained unproved on the absence of proof of her Birth Certificate and thereby she is not covered by the ambit of the POCSO Act. Hence, on the anvil of the anomalies in the evidence of the victim herself, the Respondent did deserve an acquittal and the finding of the learned trial Court is not erroneous.
4. The rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties were heard in extenso and carefully considered, as also all evidence and documents on record including the impugned Judgment.
5. This Court is to examine whether the learned trial Court correctly concluded that the case against the Respondent was a result of personal enmity of the victim's family with the Respondent and his family culminating in the Respondent's acquittal.
6. For clarity in the matter, we may briefly narrate the facts of the case. On 12.11.2014, the FIR, Exhibit 1 was Crl. A. No. 04 of 2016 5 State of Sikkim vs. Sashidhar Sharma filed by PW1, a Panchayat member of the area where the victim and the Respondent reside, complaining that the Respondent, the Headmaster of a Government Primary School of which the victim was a student, had sexually assaulted her. That, in this context, the victim's uncle had telephonically contacted the Respondent on the evening of 11.11.2014 after hearing rumours of the incident and it was agreed that the Respondent would meet the complainant in the victim's house the following day, which accordingly took place. The complainant, the Respondent, his wife, the victim and her uncle and his family members assembled therein. The victim, on enquiry about the incident, revealed that she had been raped by the Respondent since the month of August, 2014 in School. The Respondent admitting to the offence, instantly apologized to the family members and requested that the matter be settled amicably. However, those assembled there found him guilty of the offence and sought legal measures by filing Exhibit 1. On the basis of Exhibit 1, P.S. Case No.15(11)2014 of the concerned Police Station under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act was registered against the Respondent and investigated into.
7. It transpired during investigation that the Respondent was the Headmaster of the Government Primary School where the victim, a permanent resident of West Bengal was a student. The School Assembly would start at 9:20 Hrs Crl. A. No. 04 of 2016 6 State of Sikkim vs. Sashidhar Sharma and the School gave over at 15:30 Hrs. In the month of August, 2014 before the classes started, the victim as the Class Monitor went to the School Office to collect the Attendance Register and found the Respondent alone there. On her entry, he forcefully held her hand and while both were on their feet committed penetrative sexual assault on her. Thereafter he threatened to beat and fail her in her exams should she reveal the incident to anyone. In the same month, the Respondent asked the victim and her friend, PW10, to clean the Office and sent PW10 to fetch a glass of water from the storeroom. When PW10 returned, she found the Respondent buckling his belt and fastening the zipper of his trousers while the victim looked nervous and flushed. On another occasion PW13, the victim's classmate witnessed the Respondent kissing the victim on her right cheek while PW11 in a separate incident, witnessed the Respondent holding the victim and moving against her in the back of a classroom. PW14 witnessed the Respondent lifting the victim's skirt inside the classroom and inserting his hand underneath. The victim was sexually assaulted for the last time on the opening of the School after the Diwali vacation in 2014. PW15, a Teacher in the same School had also noticed the stress on the victim's face since the month of August, 2014. On completion of investigation, Charge-Sheet was filed against the Respondent under Section 376 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Crl. A. No. 04 of 2016 7
State of Sikkim vs. Sashidhar Sharma
8. Charge against the Respondent was framed by the learned trial Court under Section 5(c), 5(l), 5(m) and 5(o) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. On the plea of "not guilty" by the Respondent, twenty witnesses were examined by the prosecution, on closure of which the Appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and his responses recorded. The evidence furnished was duly considered and the impugned Judgment pronounced.
9. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the prosecution furnished Exhibit 23, the alleged Birth Certificate of the victim said to be issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Sikkim. The victim has nowhere given evidence of her age before the learned trial Court, which without putting the question to the victim about her age, has recorded that the witness is eleven years old and a minor, thereby failing to clarify the reason for its conclusion. As per the I.O., PW20, Exhibit 23 was obtained from the aunt of the victim after preparing a Handing and Taking Memo, Exhibit 24, however beyond the receipt of the Birth Certificate as established by Exhibit 24, there is no evidence whatsoever to establish that the Birth Certificate pertains to the victim. This Court in Sancha Hang Limboo v. State of Sikkim 1 has already detailed as 1 2018 SCC Online Sikk 10 Crl. A. No. 04 of 2016 8 State of Sikkim vs. Sashidhar Sharma to how the Birth Certificate of the victim is to be proved, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereinbelow;
"10. The requirements for admissibility of a document under Section 35 of the Evidence Act can be summarized as follows;
(i) The document must be in the nature of an entry in any public or other official book, register or record;
(ii) It must state a fact in issue or a relevant fact; and
(iii) The entry must be made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties or in the performance of his duties especially enjoined by the law of the country in which the relevant entry is kept.
[State of Bihar vs. Radha Krishna Singh and Others :
(1983) 3 SCC 118]
11. In Madan Mohan Singh and Others vs. Rajni Kant and Another : (2010) 9 SCC 209 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while distinguishing between admissibility of a document and its probative value observed as follows;
"18. Therefore, a document may be admissible, but as to whether the entry contained therein has any probative value may still be required to be examined in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The aforesaid legal proposition stands fortified by the judgments of this Court in Ram Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar [(1969) 2 SCC 359 :
AIR 1970 SC 326], Ram Murti v. State of Haryana[(1970) 3 SCC 21 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 371 : AIR 1970 SC 1029], Dayaram v. Dawalatshah [(1971) 1 SCC 358 : AIR 1971 SC 681], Harpal Singh v. State of H.P.[(1981) 1 SCC 560 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 208 : AIR 1981 SC 361], Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P. [(2006) 5 SCC 584 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 632], Babloo Pasi v.
State of Jharkhand [(2008) 13 SCC 133 :
(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 266], Desh Raj v. Bodh Raj [(2008) 2 SCC 186 : AIR 2008 SC 632] and Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh [(2009) 6 SCC 681 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1194]. In these cases, it has been held that even if the entry was made in an official record by the official concerned in the discharge of his official duty, it may have weight but still may require corroboration by the person on whose information the entry has been made and as to whether the entry so made has been exhibited and proved. The standard of proof required herein is the same as in other civil and criminal cases.
19. Such entries may be in any public document i.e. school register, voters' list or family register prepared under the Rules and Regulations, etc. in force, and may be Crl. A. No. 04 of 2016 9 State of Sikkim vs. Sashidhar Sharma admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act as held in Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P. [AIR 1964 SC 1625 : (1964) 2 Cri LJ 590] and Santenu Mitra v. State of W.B. [(1998) 5 SCC 697 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1381 : AIR 1999 SC 1587].
20. So far as the entries made in the official record by an official or person authorised in performance of official duties are concerned, they may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act but the court has a right to examine their probative value. The authenticity of the entries would depend on whose information such entries stood recorded and what was his source of information. The entries in school register/school leaving certificate require to be proved in accordance with law and the standard of proof required in such cases remained the same as in any other civil or criminal cases.
21. For determining the age of a person, the best evidence is of his/her parents, if it is supported by unimpeachable documents. In case the date of birth depicted in the school register/certificate stands belied by the unimpeachable evidence of reliable persons and contemporaneous documents like the date of birth register of the Municipal Corporation, government hospital/nursing home, etc., the entry in the school register is to be discarded. (Vide Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha [AIR 1965 SC 282], Birad Mal Singhviv. Anand Purohit [1988 Supp SCC 604 : AIR 1988 SC 1796], Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 1 SCC 283 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 217] and Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana [(2010) 8 SCC 714 : JT (2010) 7 SC 500].
22. If a person wants to rely on a particular date of birth and wants to press a document in service, he has to prove its authenticity in terms of Section 32(5) or Sections 50, 51, 59, 60 and 61, etc. of the Evidence Act by examining the person having special means of knowledge, authenticity of date, time, etc. mentioned therein. (Vide Updesh Kumar v.
Prithvi Singh [(2001) 2 SCC 524 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1300 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1063] and State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh [(2005) 3 SCC 702 :
AIR 2005 SC 1868].)" [emphasis supplied] A careful reading of the extracts supra would clarify that the document may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, but the Court is not barred from taking evidence to test the authenticity of the entries made therein. It needs no reiteration that admissibility of a document is one thing, while proof of its contents is an altogether different aspect. Infact, Crl. A. No. 04 of 2016 10 State of Sikkim vs. Sashidhar Sharma the ratio supra emphasises that the entries in School Register/School Leaving Certificate require to be proved in accordance with law, demanding the same standard of proof as in any other criminal case.
12. In Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit [AIR 1988 SC 1796], the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing Exhibits 8, 9, 10 and 11 which were entries in the scholar's register, counterfoil of Secondary Education Certificate of one Hukmi Chand Bhandari, copy of tabulation record of the Secondary School Examination 1974 and copy of tabulation of record of Secondary School Examination of 1977 respectively, observed as follows;
"14. ............................. Neither the admission form nor the examination form on the basis of which the aforesaid entries relating to the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi were recorded was produced before the High Court. No doubt, Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are relevant and admissible but these documents have no evidentiary value for purpose of proof of date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi as the vital piece of evidence is missing, because no evidence was placed before the Court to show on whose information the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and the date of birth of Suraj Prakash Joshi were recorded in the aforesaid document. As already stated neither of the parents of the two candidates nor any other person having special knowledge about their date of birth was examined by the respondent to prove the date of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid documents. Parents or near relations having special knowledge are the best person to depose about the date of birth of a person. If entry regarding date of birth in the scholars register is made on the information given by parents or someone having special knowledge of the fact, the same would have probative value. The testimony of Anantram Sharma and Kailash Chandra Taparia merely prove the documents but the contents of those documents were not proved.
The date of birth mentioned in the scholar's register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. The entry contained in the admission form or in the scholar register must be shown to be made on the basis of information given by the parents or a person having special knowledge about the date of birth of the person concerned. If the entry in the scholar's register regarding date of birth is made on the basis of information given by Crl. A. No. 04 of 2016 11 State of Sikkim vs. Sashidhar Sharma parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but if it is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth, such an entry will have no evidentiary value.
Merely because the documents Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were proved, it does not mean that the contents of documents were also proved. Mere proof of the documents Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 would not tantamount to proof of all the contents or the correctness of date of birth stated in the documents. Since the truth of the fact, namely, the date of birth of Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi was in issue, mere proof of the documents as produced by the aforesaid two witnesses does not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the documents. The truth or otherwise of the facts in issue, namely, the date of birth of the two candidates as mentioned in the documents could be proved by admissible evidence i.e. by the evidence of those persons who could vouch safe for the truth of the facts in issue. No evidence of any such kind was produced by the respondent to prove the truth of the facts, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and of Suraj Prakash Joshi. In the circumstances the dates of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid documents have no probative value and the dates of birth as mentioned therein could not be accepted.
............................." [emphasis supplied] The observations are self explanatory, succinctly differentiating between admissibility of the documents and its probative value."
None of the procedures enumerated supra were adhered to by the prosecution. Besides, the parents of the victim are alive and could have been examined to prove the victim's age and Exhibit 23. Since none of the aforestated steps have been resorted to by the prosecution, no other conclusion can be arrived at but the conclusion of failure on the part of the Prosecution to establish the victim's age.
10. While addressing the allegation of sexual assault on the victim, PW7 the victim, in categorical terms, has Crl. A. No. 04 of 2016 12 State of Sikkim vs. Sashidhar Sharma identified the Respondent and stated that during the month of August, 2014 as the Class Monitor, in the morning she went to the Office of the Respondent to get the Attendance Register. At that time, the Respondent held her hand, rubbed her breast and committed "chara" on her. After the act, the Respondent threatened to fail her in her examination and inflict physical assault should she reveal the incident to anyone, as such she refrained from narrating the incident to anyone. After that incident, the Respondent committed "chara" to her on several occasions, however for the self same reason she did not disclose the incident to anyone. The prolonged cross- examination of the victim failed to decimate the facts stated by her. However, it is relevant to point out that the victim has used the word "chara" in the Nepali vernacular. The exact meaning of the terminology has not been explained before the learned trial Court either by the victim or other witnesses nor was an effort made by the learned trial Court by invoking the provisions under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to elicit the correct context of the word used by the victim. What the victim's understanding of the word tantamounts to cannot be assumed by this Court as the word may be used variously to describe different sexual acts and may not necessarily be an expression of penetrative sexual assault. The understanding of the act of penetrative sexual assault by a child of approximately ten years is also a question that baffles and remains unanswered. As a consequence, the Crl. A. No. 04 of 2016 13 State of Sikkim vs. Sashidhar Sharma evidence of PW7 is necessarily to be read with the evidence of PW17 and PW18, both of whom have deposed that there were no signs of penetrative sexual assault on the victim. PW18, the Gynaecologist has categorically stated as follows;
"Local examination:- Pubic hair sparse, mild discharge present, no fresh bleeding seen. No external injuries were seen. Hymen edges intact. Hymen opening admits top of small finger. Swab collected from perineal, paraurethral and lower vaginal canal and sent for examination for presence of spermatozoa. Opinion was reserved till lab report was received.
Final opinion was given on 27.11.2014 that there was no local clinical evidence of injury and swab report prepared by Dr. A.T. Sherpa, Pathologist, District Hospital, Gyalshing - Smear studied from the vaginal perineal and paraurethral swab shows no spermatozoa. ..."
11. PW17, the Doctor, who first examined the victim on 12.11.2014 at around 1.45 p.m. opined that due to the remote history of assault, no fresh sign of assault was seen but he forwarded the victim to the Gynaecologist. Hence, the allegation of penetrative sexual assault can safely be ruled out as the prosecution has failed, by any proof whatsoever, for that matter even by the evidence of the victim to establish the said act. However, so far as sexual assault is concerned, we may examine the evidence of PW11 with whom the victim lives. According to her, on a particular day when it was "tiffin break," she saw the Respondent take the victim behind a tree and engage in an act involving some movement both being fully clothed. This fact could not be demolished under cross- examination. PW13 was another student witness. She saw the Respondent kissing the victim on her right cheek during the Mathematics Class during the month of August, 2014. This Crl. A. No. 04 of 2016 14 State of Sikkim vs. Sashidhar Sharma evidence too remained uncontroverted during cross- examination. PW14, the next student witness narrated that he was in the same Class with the victim and he along with other students and the victim were drawing and when he turned around to ask some question to the Respondent he saw that the victim was on the Respondent's desk and he had lifted her skirt and had his hand inside. He quickly removed his hand on the witness's question. This evidence also withstood cross- examination. PW15, a Teacher in the same School stated that the victim's friends narrated the acts of sexual assault committed by the Respondent on the victim. It is also her statement that on 11.11.2014, the victim told her that she was sexually assaulted by the Respondent on several occasions during the 2014 session and that the assaults took place inside his Office. PW20 was the Investigating Officer of the case who inter alia stated that after the allegations of sexual harassment, the Respondent could not be arrested as he had attempted to commit suicide by hanging himself in the Office of his School on 12.11.2014 at around 10:00 Hrs upon which he was immediately evacuated to the Primary Health Centre and later referred to a Gangtok Hospital in an unconscious state. Although an effort was made during cross- examination to establish that the Respondent could have been a psychiatric patient but the fact that the Respondent attempted to commit suicide after the matter of his having sexually assaulted the victim came to light, could not be Crl. A. No. 04 of 2016 15 State of Sikkim vs. Sashidhar Sharma controverted. Consequently, sexual assault by the Respondent stands proved by uncontroverted evidence.
12. Thus, in consideration of the entire evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court was carried away by the red herring introduced by suggestions made by Counsel for the Respondent during the cross-examination of PW1, PW3, PW5, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW13, PW15 and PW20, that the "Bhujel family" was against the Respondent and responsible for false allegations against the Respondent. It may be true that the wife and two women members of his family were also teaching in the same School but the fact remains that the incidents of sexual assault were witnessed by the students inside the Classroom where obviously all the Teachers would not have gathered. Only one incident was witnessed by PW11 outside the Classroom during the tiffin break. There is also no reason to doubt the statement of the victim whose evidence of sexual assault by the Respondent on her have been cogent and consistent. True it is therefore that no penetrative sexual assault has been established, yet, the fact of sexual assault on the victim is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
13. The delay in lodging of the FIR needs no further explanation as the victim has succinctly deposed that she did not report the matter to either friends or family on account of the threat held out to her by the Respondent. Besides, it has emerged in cross-examination that she is a bright student and Crl. A. No. 04 of 2016 16 State of Sikkim vs. Sashidhar Sharma secured first position in the Class. In such a circumstance, any student would balk at the ignominy of being failed more so when the threat appears real, having been made by a Teacher.
14. The argument of the Respondent that the Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of the victim was not considered is not tenable as the Prosecution itself has failed to elicit corroborative evidence of the victim's statement made therein.
15. In the end result, it cannot but be concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish that the victim was below eighteen years of age to bring her within the ambit of Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act and the benefit thereof is imminently to be extended to the Respondent. However, we conclude that the offence committed by the Respondent would undoubtedly fall under Section 354A of the IPC. Since the punishment prescribed under Section 354A of the IPC is lesser than Section 5(c), 5(l), 5(m) and 5(o) punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, there is no requirement for a fresh hearing on sentence.
16. Consequently, the impugned Judgment of the learned trial Court is set aside.
17. The Respondent is convicted of the offence under Section 354A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years with fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only, in default of Crl. A. No. 04 of 2016 17 State of Sikkim vs. Sashidhar Sharma fine to undergo simple imprisonment of six months. The fine, if deposited shall be made over to the victim who shall also be made over a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only, in terms of the Sikkim Compensation to Victims or his Dependents (Amendment) Schemes, 2016.
18. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the Respondent, if any, shall be set off against the period of imprisonment imposed on him today.
19. Appeal allowed.
20. No order as to costs.
21. Copy of this Judgment be sent to the learned trial Court, for information and compliance.
22. Copy be made over to the Member Secretary, Sikkim State Legal Services Authority, for information and compliance.
23. In view of the fact that the Appeal is against the impugned Judgment of the Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), West Sikkim, at Gyalshing, let the Respondent-Accused surrender tomorrow, i.e., 01.10.2019, before the Learned Special Judge by 11 a.m. positively, to undergo the sentence imposed on him by the Judgment of this Court. Should he fail to surrender, the Learned Special Judge shall initiate necessary steps.
24. The bail-bonds of the Respondent-Accused stands cancelled.
Crl. A. No. 04 of 2016 18
State of Sikkim vs. Sashidhar Sharma
25. Records of the learned trial Court be remitted forthwith.
( Bhaskar Raj Pradhan ) ( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge Acting Chief Justice
30.09.2019 30.09.2019
Approved for reporting: Yes
Internet: Yes
ml