Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: under section 354B in Sudhir vs State Of U.P. on 19 February, 2020Matching Fragments
1. Heard Sri V.P. Singh Kashyap, Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri Ratendra Kumar, learned A.G.A.
2. This jail appeal has been preferred by appellant- Sudhir against the judgment and order dated 05.08.2017, passed by Additional Session Judge (Court No. 1), Mahoba, in Special Session Trial No. 23 of 2016 (State Vs. Sudhir), whereby convicting the appellant under Section 354B IPC, for 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default 1 month simple imprisonment, under section 323 IPC for 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default 1 month simple imprisonment, under section 8 of Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences (In short the "POCSO Act"), for 4 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default 1 month simple imprisonment. All the sentence shall run concurrently.
6. After registration of the case against the appellant, the investigation of this case was conducted by investigating officer S.I. Ramesh Kumar P.W.5. During investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statement of complainant Kailash Kushwaha and on be haste of the complainant site plan was prepared, which is as Ext. Ka 3. After recording the statements of eyewitnesses, charge sheet was submitted by investigating officer under sections 354-B, 323 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act.
7. After submission of charge-sheet, charge framed against the appellant under sections 354B, 323 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act on 01.09.2016. Charge read over to the accused-appellant and accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
17. Oral evidence of the witness is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. In this case, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under section 354B, 323 IPC and 8 POCSO Act .
18. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the appellant is a poor person. He is daily wages labour working in crusher plant, he is resident of Jharkhand State. The convict appellant have no criminal antecedent. There is likelihood on him being brought in main stream of society after repent and reformation, he is in jail since the date of lodging of the FIR i.e. 26.03.2016 till date, so the appellant deserves leniency by the court for punishing the appellant.
19. Since the appellant is in jail since 26.03.2016, in the interest of justice would be met, if the appellant punished for 4 years R.I. in place of 5 years under section 354 B IPC. So on the point of sentence, appeal is partly allowed.
20. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, On the point of conviction under sections 354B, 323 IPC and 8 POCSO Act, the appeal is hereby dismissed. So far on point of sentence, appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of appellant under section 354B IPC is reduced from 5 years rigorous imprisonment to 4 years rigorous imprisonment. Sentence under section 8 POCSO Act and under Section 323 IPC shall remain unaltered.