Hukum Bahadur vs State Of Uttarakhand

N.S. Dhanik, J

This criminal jail appeal is preferred by the appellant through Superintendent, District Jail, Dehradun against the judgment and order dated 16.08.2019 passed by learned FTC/Special Judge (POCSO)/ Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2018, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall serve further six months rigorous imprisonment.

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 for the aforementioned offence is maintained.

Learned State Counsel does not seriously object to the prayer made on behalf of the appellant. He fairly concedes that appellant has served about two years six months in the jail.

Learned Amicus Curiae submits that the appellant is a very poor person. He submits that this Court vide order dated 28.11.2019 had granted bail to the appellant but due to financial hardship, he did not furnish the bail bond. He further submits that appellant has already served two years six months in the jail and prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the appellant, may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant further referred to Sections 8 & 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 which reads as under:

"8.Punishment for Sexual Assault- Whoever, commits sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Punishment for attempt to commit an offence- Whoever attempts to commit any offence punishable under this Act or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt, does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence or with fine or with both."

Since the longest term of sentence provided under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is five years and the appellant has already served more than half of the sentence in the jail and also considering the nature of the case, I am of the considered view that this much of sentence, as served out by the appellant, is sufficient to serve the purpose.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the fact that the appellant is a poor person, 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 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 the period already undergone by the appellant, subject to deposit of fine as imposed by the trial Court. If the appellant fails to deposit the amount of fine, he shall serve the additional three months imprisonment. 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.