Kala Mia vs State Of Tripura

[1[ The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.07.2018 passed by Ld. Special Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in case No. Special 16 (POCSO) of 2017 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Section-6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act) and thereby sentenced to suffer RI for 3(three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation.

[2] Heard Ms. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent. I have also heard the prosecutrix as well as Smt. Jarina Bibi, the mother of the victim girl who was also the complainant under which, the accused-appellant was implicated with the case.

[3] The background of the case is that the appellant had committed an offence under Section-8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act). After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The learned Court took cognizance of the offence and framed charges against the accused-appellant. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses was recorded. Thereafter, on consideration of the evidence and the materials on record, the learned Special Judge convicted the accused under Section-8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to suffer RI for 3 (three) years along with fine.

[4] The accused-appellant was released on bail and preferred this appeal. At the time of hearing of this appeal, the appellant, the complainant and the victim girl were present before the Court.

[5] Ms. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the matter has been mitigated between the parties. In view of above, I have personally interacted with the victim girl as well as the mother, the complainant Smt. Jarina Bibi who informed this Court that out of misunderstanding she lodged the case against the appellant. However, the matter has been amicably settled in presence of the village leaders.

[6] Now, the question remains to be answered that whether this Court has the power to allow the prayer for acquittal of the appellant who has been convicted by the learned trial court. For that reason, I have taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688.

[7] After close reading of the said judgment (supra), in my opinion, in a case where the offence is made against women and other major offences under the IPC as well as the POCSO Act, it is not desirable to allow the submission of the accused person(s) as well as the complainant, even if the matter is amicably settled between them. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the said case has deprecated the trend of the trial court to allow such prayer from either of the parties to the lis.

[8] The circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, is somewhat different. In the instant case, trial was conducted and after consideration of the evidences brought out in course of trial, the learned Court convicted the accused. The learned trial court did not stall the proceeding at any point of time and did not entertain any such prayer relating to the fact that the matter was compromised.

[9] In that view of the matter, in my considered view, this Court can consider this prayer at this appellate stage when the parties to the lis have personally appeared before this Court and submitted that the matter has been compromised between them.

[10] Accordingly, without entering into the merit of the case and on the basis of prayer of the complainant and the victim girl, this Court has relieved the accused-appellant from the accusation and charges levelled against him. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted from the charge as levelled against him by the complainant Smt. Jarina Bibi. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence to suffer imprisonment for 3(three) years passed in Special 16(POCSO) of 2017 by the Ld. Special Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur, stands set aside and quashed.

[11] The appellant is discharged from his liability of bail bond, surety is also discharged.

[12] In terms of the above, the present appeal stands allowed and disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.