Raju Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand

By Court: Heard Mr. Randhir Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State.

The sole appellant has preferred this criminal appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.09.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IVth, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year.

The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that on 15.10.2002 at about 11:00 P.M., the informant was on his shop and just behind the shop, the family of the informant was residing, where informant’s daughter was playing on the way. Meanwhile, Raju Sharma (appellant) came and took the daughter of the informant, aged about four years to nearby bush and put his finger in her private part and thereafter, she was crying. On hearing cry, wife of informant came out and saw that accused had caught her daughter and had forced her to sit on his lap. She also raised hulla, informant also reached there immediately and on seeing the informant, Raju Sharma (appellant) tried to flee away leaving the victim near the informant’s shop. Blood was coming out from her private part. Thereafter, when the informant and other persons tried to apprehend the accused, who was fleeing away fell down and received some hurt. On hulla, Patrolling party of Police also reached there and took informant and accused to police station. It is further alleged that 8-9 months back also a case was lodged against accused for running away with the daughter of one Thakur Ji.

On the basis of written report of informant, FIR being Harla P.S. Case No. 109 of 2002 was registered for the offence u/s 377/354 of I.P.C. against the appellant.

After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case has submitted charge sheet against the accused. After submission of charge sheet, the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where the charges were framed under Sections 376/511 of the I.P.C., to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to substantiate the charges leveled against accused person, altogether 06 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced.

The case of defence is that appellant is an innocent person and has committed no offence at all. He has been falsely implicated in this case.

Defence has also examined two witnesses. However, no documentary evidence has been adduced.

The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. is absolutely unwarranted under law as the factual scenario clearly depicts that the ingredients of Section 354 I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. No local independent witness has supported the case of prosecution.

In alternative, it is submitted that the appellant has already undergone about 03 months custody, out of one year R.I. imposed upon him. It is further submitted that the occurrence is of the year 2002 and more than two decades have been passed. Therefore, appellant has been sufficiently punished for the guilt and his sentence may be reduced to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by him.

On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. has raised no serious objection to the aforesaid point of argument, rather defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on merits.

It appears that the first information was lodged in the year 2002 for the offence under Section 377/354 of the I.P.C. against the appellant but after conclusion of trial, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. From the evidence of witnesses, it is crystal clear that appellant had outraged the modesty of victim. I.O. has proved the place of occurrence. Although, the medical report does not support the case of prosecution, but victim was medically examined after two days of incident. Therefore, on merits, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction, but so far quantum of sentence is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence committed by the appellant, his age, antecedent and character and also in view of the fact that considerable period has elapsed from the date of occurrence and appellant has also remained in custody for almost three months, out of one year sentence, I feel inclined to modify the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone instead of imprisonment of one year as awarded by the learned trial court.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above.

The appellant is on bail. As such, he is discharged from liability of bail bond and sureties shall also discharged

Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.