In Jayant Kumar @ Jayakant Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2024), by its order dated August 1, 2024, Patna High Court's Division bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Jitendra Kumar observed that "The minimum mandatory sentence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 is twenty years" but 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Saharsa in a POCSO case sentenced Jayant Kumar to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for 12 years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-for each of the offence and in default of payment of fine. He was directed to suffer R.I. for six months for each on each of the counts by order dated January 31, 2019. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 by judgment dated January 21, 2019. The Court pointed out the error in the sentencing order but ut did not ask the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Saharsa to rectify it.
The appellant was convicted for the having impregnated a 14 years old girl. The victim herself lodged a written report addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of Mahila Police Station on June 14, 2016 alleging that the appellant, her neighbour, had been subjecting her to sexual intercourse for the last six months on the pretext of marrying her. At the time of lodging of the written report, she was “quick with the child”. She alleged that on June 13, 2016 when she went to the appellant to press for the marriage, she was assaulted, abused and thrown out of the house. It was then that she informed her mother, who brought her to the Mahila Police Station. The victim had delivered a child who at the time of Trial was two years old. After examining six witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and one on behalf of the defense, the Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the appellant.
The High Court has recorded that the victim turned volte-face at the Trial. As prosecution witness (PW) 1, she deposed before the Trial Court that the appellant used to call her at his home and rape her. But in her cross-examination, she narrated an absolutely different story. On the prompting of villagers, in order to pressurize the appellant to marry her, the name of the appellant was provided by the villagers and therefore she had lodged this case against him. The appellant had not committed rape on her. Arti Singh, PW3, the Investigator of this case admitted that no document or evidence was furnished by the victim or her family members regarding the accusation against the appellant. The victim was examined by Dr. Ravindra Mohan (PW4) submitted that the victim was pregnant for over eight months. It is apparent that the victim chose to file the case against the appellant at a very advanced stage of pregnancy. Navneet Singh, defense witness (DW) 1 spoke about the good moral character of the appellant. DW1 is one of the panches of the Panchayat in which the village of the victim is located.
The High Court found it "really queer" that even though the victim has delivered a baby but at the Trial, she made a somersault and stated that the appellant was not the father of her child. All the allegations against the appellant were denied by the victim and her mother as well. The Court has recorded that "no effort was made by the prosecution to prove that the victim was less than 18 years of age. Though no objection has been raised regarding the assessment of the age of the victim and consequent assuming of jurisdiction of the Special Court to try this case, but on an overall analysis, we find that even the age of the victim has not been proved. She, at the time of her medical examination was already carrying a pregnancy of eight months and was found less than 18 years of age."
The Court observed that the accusation against the appellant have become "very doubtful". It concluded: "Giving benefit of doubt to the appellant, we set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and set the appellant at liberty....The appellant is directed to be released from jail forthwith if not required or detained in connection with any other case....Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Superintendent of concerned jail for record and compliance." The judgement was authored by Justice Ashutosh Kumar.
The Court noted that the Trial Court ought to have determined whether
the the victim was a minor at that time or else the case would fall in
some other category of offence, namely, reneging on the promise of marriage.
No comments:
Post a Comment