The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.497 of 2024 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under the POCSO Act, Nayagarh in T.R No.91 of 2023. Chuin @ Debi Prasad Das …. Appellant ---- -versus- State of Orissa …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Advocate For Respondent - Mr. S. K. Nayak, Additional Government Advocate CORAM MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing :20.05.2024 : Date of Judgment : 21.06.2024 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court under the POCSO Act, Nayagarh in T.R No.91 of 2023, arising out Gania P.S. Case No.37 of 2023. CRLA No.497 of 2024 Page 1 of 5 The Appellant (accused) faced the trial being charged for commission of offence under section 323/341/354/354-A/354- B/506/507 of the the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), and under section 10/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, ‘the POCSO Act) as well as section 67/67- A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, “I.T Act”). The Trial Court upon examination of the evidence let in by the prosecution, while acquitting the accused of the charge under section 323/341/354-B/ 506/507 of the IPC and section 8/12 of the POCSO Act as well as Section 67/67-A of the I.T Act has held him guilty for commission of offence under section 354/354-A of the IPC. Accordingly, the accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three year and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under section 354 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 354-A of the IPC. 2. Mr. S. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the Appellants (accused) from the beginning instead of questioning the finding of guilt against the accused as has been returned by the Trial Court on merit, confined his submission only with regard to the quantum of sentence. He submitted that the accused being aged CRLA No.497 of 2024 Page 2 of 5 about 38 years has his own family to maintain; his father aged about 72 years, wife and two daughters are depending upon him when the daughters are pursuing their study at the upper primary level. He further submitted that there being no male member in the in-laws family of the Appellant, his mother-in-law also depends upon him, and, therefore, the Appellant used to take up different job simultaneously in order to augment his income. 3. He further submitted that the accused having been arrested in the case is in custody since 15.04.2023 and by now has remained in custody for more than one year and one month when his family members being somehow been able to maintain themselves and pull on till date are no more in a position to continue further without the help and assistance from the side of this Appellant being by their side. He, therefore, submitted that when the incident in question was only an aberration and it is not stated that the Appellant was having any involvement in similar activity at any prior point of time, as no report is also forthcoming that his conduct inside the custody is in any way adverse, in the interest of justice, sentence of further imprisonment at this stage, would stand highly disproportionate, and, therefore, the same need be accordingly reduced. CRLA No.497 of 2024 Page 3 of 5 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State opposing the above submission contended that the manner in which the incident had taken place and the relationship between the Appellant and victim being kept in view, the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is to be held as commensurate the offence. 5. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which have been impugned in this Appeal. I have also gone through the depositions of P.W.1 to P.W.12 as also the documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.P.1 to Ext.P17. 6. Addressing the rival submission revolving round the quantum of sentence, this Court finds that the accused is around 40 years of age. It is stated that the he is the sole bread earner of the family consisting of his old father aged about 72 years, wife and two daughters when his mother-in-law is also said to be depending upon him. It is also not in dispute that the two daughters of the Appellant are prosecuting their study in the upper primary level. The Appellant is a graduated. No such material is there on record to show that he had any previous involvement in similar activity nor anything he stated in adverse during his continued detention inside the custody. The accused being arrested on 15.04.2023 has all along remained in custody till CRLA No.497 of 2024 Page 4 of 5 now and in this way, he has undergone the sentence of imprisonment for a period of more than one year two months (14 months) continuously. 7. Taking into account all the above factors, this Court is of the view that while maintaining the conviction of the accused for commission of offence under section 354/354-A of the IPC, since the accused has already undergone the sentence imposed on him for the offence under section 354-A of the IPC, reduction of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court for commission of offence under section 354 of the IPC to the imprisonment for the period already undergone with imposition of fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (06) months would be in the interest of justice and that would too meet the ends of justice; if it is directed that from out of fine if so realized; the victim (P.W.1) would be paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). 8. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part with the modification of the sentence to the extent as indicated above. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Gitanjali Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 27-Jun-2024 12:28:33 CRLA No.497 of 2024 (D. Dash), Judge. Page 5 of 5