RAMAN KUMAR @ RAMANIYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Raman Kumar @ Ramaniya
STATE OF BIHAR
Click here to view full judgement.
BIRENDRA KUMAR, J. -
(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction. The sole appellant, named above, faced trial before the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, under the POCSO Act, Muzaffarpur in connection with Kudhani P.S. Case No. 407 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 84 of 2016 and Trial No. 06 of 2017. By the impugned judgment dated 21.01.2019, the appellant was found guilty for the offences under Sections 354-A and 341 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (in short "POCSO Act"). By the same judgment, the appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned order of sentence dated 29.01.2019, the learned Trial Judge awarded one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code, one month simple imprisonment for offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and four years rigorous imprisonment plus fine of rupees ten thousand for offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. In default of payment of fine, six months rigorous imprisonment was ordered. The sentences are to run concurrently.
(2.) The prosecution case as disclosed in the written report (Ext. 1) of the prosecutrix (P.W. 2) is that on 15.12.2016 at 06:00 a.m., the prosecutrix a girl aged about fifteen years was going to the Bathan from her house. On the way, near the water pumping machine of Darogi Mahto, the appellant, a co-villager, all of a sudden, caught her and started sexual harassment. Pressing on the mouth of the victim, the appellant gave tooth bite at different portion of the chick. The appellant torn her lower garment. On alarm, the people nearby assembled then appellant fled away and the informant could save her chastity. The family of the informant went to the local Sarpanch who asked to go to the police station because the appellant was not ready for Panchayati. In the past also, the appellant had harassed the informant for which Panchayati had taken place.
(3.) On the basis of written report aforesaid Kudhani P.S. Case No. 407 of 2016 was registered.
After investigation of the case, the police submitted charge-sheet and the appellant was put on trial accordingly.
During trial, prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses and the defence also produced two witnesses. ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.