Litan Shil vs State Of Tripura

[1] This appeal is filed by the original accused to challenge the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur, by a judgment dated 15th September, 2018.

[2] As per the prosecution, on 9th July, 2014 at about 09.30 am. in the morning, minor daughter of the complainant aged about 5 years while returning from school when the accused misbehaved with her by pressing her chest and removing her undergarment. The victim girl narrated the incident to her mother upon which an FIR came to be filed against the accused in which it was further alleged that on the previous day also the accused had similarly misbehaved with another minor girl. A charge was framed against him for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 354(A), 506 of IPC and under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the 'POCSO Act' for short).

[3] The prosecution examined the first informant, the mother of the victim girl as PW.1. She deposed that in the year 2014 in the morning hours her daughter had gone to the school. On the way back to home the accused caught her, pressed her breast and tried to open her panty. When she reached home the girl narrated the same to the mother upon which the FIR was filed.

[4] The victim girl was examined as PW.2. The learned Judge after putting her general questions to assess her ability to answer relevant questions, recorded her deposition in which she stated that on the date of incident she had gone to the school dropped by her mother. On the way back home the accused caught her, pressed her breast and also opened her pant which she told her mother after reaching home. PW.3, Ratna Chakraborty, was another minor girl aged about 9 years. According to her, the accused had similarly misbehaved with her also couple of days earlier. It is not necessary to refer to the depositions of other witnesses.

[5] Based on such evidence, the learned Judge convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 341, 354(A), 506 of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act. For offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 5(five) years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand). For the remaining offences lesser punishments have been imposed which would run concurrently.

[6] Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any error in the view of the trial Court in assessment of the evidence on record. Most important witnesses are the victim girl and her mother. Though the victim girl herself was rather young, she had given cogent answers before the Court. Her statement was also previously recorded by the Magistrate. Soon after that incident, she had narrated the events to her mother. Her mother's deposition is also in conformity with the girl's statements. Importantly, the defence has not suggested any past animosity or any other reason for false implication. In view of such evidence, the conviction of the accused needs to be confirmed. However, I find that the sentence awarded for offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is harsh. The said Section prescribes a minimum sentence of 3(three) years which may extend up to 5(five) years. The accused has been awarded the maximum imposable sentence. In the facts of the case, such harsh measure would not be justified. His sentence for 5(five) years under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is, therefore, reduced to 3(three) years of rigorous imprisonment. Rest of the sentences remained unaltered.

Appeal is allowed to this limited extent and disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

Send down the LCRs forthwith.