The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.383 of 2024 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27th March, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Jeypore in T.R. Case No.52 of 2021. Pradeep Nag @ Babu ---- -versus- …. Appellant State of Odisha …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - M/s.Saroj Kumar Padhy, G. Banji, U. Adilla, S. Pradhan & R. Nayak (Advocates)
Legal Reasoning
For Respondent - Mr.G.N. Rout, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing : 24.04.2024 : Date of Judgment : 01.05.2024 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27th March, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Jeypore in T.R. Case No.52 of 2021 arising out of G.R. Case No.500 of 2021 corresponding to Sunabeda P.S. Case No.84 of 2021. CRLA No.383 of 2024 Page 1 of 6 The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for commission of the offence under sections 451/354A(2)/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two (2) years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a term of three (3) months for commission of the offence under section 451 of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a term of three (3) years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a term of three (3) months for commission of the offence under section 354A(2) of the IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for a term of one (1) year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (1) month for commission of the offence under section 323 of the IPC with the stipulation that the substantive sentences would run concurrently. It was further directed that out of the fine amount, if realized, an amount of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) be paid to the Victim (P.W.1) and the rest amount of fine, if recovered, be credited to the Government as per rules. 2. Prosecution case is that on 28.06.2021 around 10 A.M. when the victim (P.W.1) aged about 14 years was sleeping on her bed, the accused came to her and expressed his desire to sleep by her CRLA No.383 of 2024 Page 2 of 6 side. He thereafter having abused her in obscene language, dragged her outside of the house by holding her hands. When the victim ran towards the house of her friends, the accused thereafter chased her and assaulted her on her leg by an iron pipe. The father of the victim as then intervened and protested, he too was assaulted by holding his neck and thereafter when her mother rushed to the spot, she was threatened by the accused. 3. A written report to the above effect being lodged by the Victim (Informant-P.W.1) with the Inspect-in-Charge (IIC) Sunabeda Police Station, treated the same as FIR (Ext.P.2) and upon registration of the criminal case, took up the investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant (accused), from the very beginning, instead of questioning the finding of guilt against the accused, as has been returned by the Trial Court for the above offences, confined his submission only on the question of sentence. He submitted that taking into account the age of the Appellant (accused) and the rural background from which he hails, since he has already faced the mental agony of the criminal trial, for all these years and he too has remained in custody for more than one and half months; the sentence of imprisonment, as has been awarded, stands too harsh. He, therefore, submitted that it is a fit case that at this distance of time, taking all the CRLA No.383 of 2024 Page 3 of 6 relevant factors into account, the sentence be appropriately modified to imposition of fine as deemed just and proper. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent- State, while submitting that the offence under section 451 for which the conviction has been recorded against the Appellant (accused) is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence intended to the committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to seven years; that the offence under section 354-A(2) of the I.P.C. is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and that the section 323 of the I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, contended that in the proven facts and circumstances, the sentence as has been awarded by the Trial Court commensurate the offences committed. 6. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction and have also extensively travelled through the depositions of the witnesses (P.Ws.1 to P.W.10). CRLA No.383 of 2024 Page 4 of 6 7. The Appellant (accused) stood charged for commission of the offence under sections 451/354/354A/323 of the I.P.C. read with section 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short, ‘the POCSO Act’). Upon examination of the evidence of the victim (P.W.1) and her mother (P.W.2) as also other evidence, the Trial Court has found the prosecution to have failed to establish the charge for commission of the offence under section 12 of the POCSO Act. So, for that charge, the Appellant (accused) has been acquitted. The Appellant (accused), however, has been convicted for commission of the offence under section 451/354-A(2)/323 of the IPC. The allegations further had been levelled against the Appellant for commission of the offence under section 12 of the POCSO Act, which has been found to have not been established. The Appellant (accused) hails from the rural background and as it appears, has been undergoing mental agony of a criminal trial right from the year 2021 till now. He too has remained in custody from 30.06.2021 to 19.08.2021. Cumulatively viewing of all these aforesaid, this Court is the view that the sentence of period undergone and payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for committing the offence under section 451 of IPC; fine of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six CRLA No.383 of 2024 Page 5 of 6 Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for commission of the offence under section 354-A(2) of the IPC and fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment three months for commission of the offence under section 323 of the IPC at this distance of time, would serve in the interest of justice and meet its ends. Accordingly, the Appellant’s conviction for the offence under section 451/354-A(2)/323 of the IPC being confirmed; he is sentenced afore-stated. 8. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part with the modification as to order of sentence dated 27th March, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Jeypore in T.R. Case No.52 of 2021 to the extent as indicated above. The fine amount, if so realized, shall be paid to the victim (P.W.1) as compensation. Himansu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 08-May-2024 19:42:56 CRLA No.383 of 2024 (D. Dash), Judge. Page 6 of 6