Decided on November 04,2020

Sumit Sharma Appellant
STATE OF H. P. Respondents


Sureshwar Thakur, J. - (1.)The accused/appellant herein, became charged for, the, commission of an offence punishable, under, Section 376(2)(f)(n) of the IPC, and, also became charged, for, commission of an offence punishable, under, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short "POCSO" Act). The learned trial Court concerned, made an order of conviction, vis-a-vis, the afore charged offences, and, also sentenced the convict, to, undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 years, and, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, for commission, of, offences punishable under Section 376 (2)(f)(n) of the IPC, and, under, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and, in default of payment of fine amount, he was sentenced, to, undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
(2.)The convict/accused/appellant herein, becomes aggrieved therefrom, hence, through, casting the extant appeal before this Court, has strived to beget reversal(s) of the afore made verdict, of, conviction, and, the afore consequent therewith order, of, sentence(s) hence imposed, upon him.
(3.)The genesis of the prosecution story, is, embodied in Ex.PW1/A, exhibit whereof, is, a complaint made by the father of the victim, to, the SHO Police Station concerned, wherein, he makes penally inculpable scribings against the accused, inasmuch, as, on 10.07.2017, after medical examination of the prosecutrix being made, by a private practitioner, his becoming intimated, vis-a-vis, the minor prosecutrix rather developing pregnancy. The afore intimation, was made, to the author of Ex.PW1/A, by the, mother of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, upon, the minor prosecutrix being queried by her mother, one Bhuvneshwari, the former revealed, vis-a-vis, since November, 2016, the accused subjecting her to repeated forcible sexual intercourses, and, also his intimidating her, against hers disclosing, the, afore incident to anybody. On anvil of the afore complaint, an FIR came to be recorded, by, the SHO Police Station, Jhakri, FIR whereof is embodied, in, Ex.PW18/A. During the course of investigations into the allegations, occurring, in the afore alluded FIR, the prosecutrix made a statement under Section 164, of, the Cr.P.C., before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, (i) and, therein she makes echoings carrying corroborations, vis-a-vis, the disclosure(s), as, made in Ex.PW1/A. Furthermore, during the course of investigations, the Investigating Officer concerned, through, memo borne in Ex.PW14/B, hence, collected blood samples of the accused, on FTA card, and, through memo, borne in Ex.PW15/C, he collected blood samples, on FTA card, of, the minor prosecutrix, and, also through memo borne in Mark-A, he collected the blood samples, on FTA card, of, the minor baby, of, the minor prosecutrix. The afore collected blood samples, on FTA cards, respectively of the accused, the minor prosecutrix, and, of the minor baby, were all sent, for their inter se comparison, to, the FSL concerned. The FSL concerned, after making the apposite inter se profiling(s), of, the afore collected blood samples, on FTA cards, of, each of the afore, made a pronouncement, as become(s) borne in Ex.PY, vis-a-vis, each carrying inter se compatibility.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.