AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
CAV On Dated- 08.07.2026 Pronounced On- 11.08.2026
The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 30.09.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. I, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.07.2015 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga in G.R. No. 596 of 2013, whereby the petitioners were held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (D) of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced them for detention and rehabilitation for a period of three years each and further ordered them to be kept in care of Special Home for the aforesaid period.
The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the prosecutrix, aged about 13 years, in her written report has stated that on the occasion of ‘Dipawali’ she had gone to village of her maternal grandfather at Village – Toto, P.S.-Bhandra, District – Lohardaga. On 03.11.2013 at about 8:30 to 9:00 P.M., she was returning to the house of her maternal grandfather from the house of her ‘mausi’ namely, Bhondal Orain, in the way, both the petitioners caught her and took her towards ‘Rain Bagicha’ and one by one forcibly committed rape on her for whole night. The petitioners threatened the prosecutrix not to disclose the occurrence to anyone. However, on the next day, the prosecutrix disclosed the matter to her ‘mausi’. Thereafter, her maternal uncle Sani Oraon in order to ascertain the correct identity of the accused took two days, thereafter, on being knowledge about the identity of the accused, the prosecutrix along with her maternal uncle went to police station and lodged this case on 06.11.2013.
On the basis of written report of the informant, Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No. 31 of 2013 dated 06.11.2023 under Section 376 (D) of the I.P.C. and Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act, 2012 was registered against the juveniles and the police started investigation of this case.
After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against both the Juveniles under Section 376 (D) of the I.P.C. and Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the cognizance of offences was taken against the Juveniles. Both were declared Juveniles vide order dated 24.07.2014 passed by learned Addil. Sessions Judge-I, Lohardaga and the case record was received in the Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga on 31.07.2014 for enquiry and disposal.
On 02.08.2014, the substance of accusation under Section 376 (D) of the I.P.C. and Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act, 2012 was explained to the Juveniles, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for enquiry by the Board.
In course of trial, in order to prove the case against the Juveniles, the prosecution has altogether examined twelve witnesses and also adduced following documentary evidence:-
| Exhibit-1 | : | Signature of victim on written report. |
| Exhibit-1/1 | : | Signature of mama of victim on written report. |
| Exhibit-2 | : | Signature of victim on the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. |
| Exhibit-3 | : | Age determination report of the victim. |
| Exhibit-4 | : | Medical Report of victim. |
| Exhibit-5 | : | Written Report. |
| Exhibit-6 | : | Endorsement on the written report. |
| Exhibit-7 | : | Formal F.I.R. |
| Exhibit-8 | : | Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim. |
The case of defence was denial from the allegations and claimed to be innocent.
After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed by the concerned trial court and affirmed and upheld by the learned appellate court, which has been assailed in this revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, without touching the merits of the judgment of trial court and the appellate court, has confined himself to the point of quantum of sentence. It is submitted that out of three years custody at Remand Home for rehabilitation, petitioners have already undergone two years and 05 months custody at Special Home, Dhanbad. The occurrence is of the year 2013 and at that time, the petitioners were below the age of 18 and now they have attained the age of majority and reserved in the main stream of life, therefore, there is no necessity to send the petitioners for rehabilitation at Remand Home, only for legal formality. Therefore, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by them in custody.
Learned APP on behalf of the State has defended the impugned judgment on merits. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it is fairly admitted that substantial part of sentence of custody at Remand Home has been undergone by the petitioners.
I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court. It appears that there is concurrent finding of both the courts below that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts for the offence under 376 (D) of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The finding of fact of the trial court as well as appellate court appears to be correct legal and proper, requiring no interference on merits by way of this revision.
So far sentence awarded to the petitioners is concerned, admittedly out of three years custody at Remand Home for rehabilitation, they have sustained substantial part of the imprisonment to the extent of 02 years and 05 months at Special Home, Dhanbad.
It appears that the date of alleged occurrence was of the year 2013 and more than a decade has been passed from the alleged occurrence. The petitioners have sustained agony of trial for the aforesaid period and also served sentence about 02 years and 05 months.
Under the aforementioned circumstances, in the interest of justice, the imprisonment already undergone appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by them, as more than a decade has elapsed.
In view of discussions and reasons, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above i.e. petitioners are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone.
Petitioners are on bail, as such, they shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged.
Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful.