Chandra Singh Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand

N.S. Dhanik, J

This criminal jail appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.06.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Bageshwar, in Special Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2015. By the said judgment and order dated 04.06.2015, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and was sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Brief facts of the case are that, on 07.02.2015, the informant lodged an FIR alleging therein that her daughter i.e. the victim, aged about 17 years and studying in Class Xth in Government Inter-College, informed her mother that on 06.02.2015 when she was returning from her school to her house, she waited for her friends on Kalghuni Gadhera in front of the shop of the accused. At about 1:00 or 1:30 PM, the shop owner, namely, Chandra Singh Bisht gave her a packet of Kurkure. While she was eating kurkure, he forcefully held her hand and took her inside the shop and, when she protested, he assured her that nothing would happen and made her lay on the charpai. When the victim said that she will inform about the incident at her home, the accused replied that he has lot of money. Thereafter, he opened the lower cloth (pajama) of the victim and raped her. Then she started crying and the shop owner gave her Rs. 120 and threatened her to not disclose the incident to anybody. She informed the incident to her mother.

After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused appellant. Based on the same, charges were framed and the Court below has convicted the appellant for the aforementioned offences.

Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant does not press this appeal on merits. He submits his arguments only on the quantum of sentence. Since the appellant's counsel does not challenge the conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and, accordingly, the conviction of the appellant, as ordered by the trial Court, is maintained.

Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submits that the appellant is aged about 67 years. He also submits that there is no one to do pairvi on behalf of the appellant. He further submits that the appellant has already served 05 years six months and seventeen days in jail and prays that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Learned Amicus Curiae placed reliance on Section 4 of POCSO Act which reads as follows:-

"4. Punishment for penetrative sexual assault-Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."

On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. It is submitted that at the time of incident, the victim was minor aged between 17 to 18 years. It is also submitted that the accused/appellant has sexually exploited the victim which is a heinous offence. It is further submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the appellant, nor is any compassion called for in the instant case.

Since the appellant has already served 5 years six months and seventeen days imprisonment, and also considering the nature of the case, I am of the considered view that the imprisonment of seven years would be sufficient to meet the end of justice.

Considering the submissions of learned Amicus Curiae and the fact that the appellant is aged about 67 years, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be sub-served, if the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to seven years adjusting the period already undergone by him. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on merit. However, it is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence and the sentence is reduced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment adjusting the period already undergone by the appellant. The sentence of fine is reduced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- The reduced amount shall be deposited before the trial Court as per rules. If the appellant fails to deposit the reduced amount of fine, he shall serve the six months simple imprisonment in addition. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above.

Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be sent back to the Court concerned for doing the needful at the earliest. A copy of this order also be sent to the Superintendent of Jail concerned for compliance.