Sitaram Roy @ Dolu vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 3179 Cal

 09      10.06.2021                         CRA 327 of 2018
NB& KC
                                 CRAN 1 of 2018 (Old CRAN 3630 of 2018)

                      In the matter of:- Sitaram Roy @ Dolu                       ...appellant


                                       Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta
                                                      ...for the appellant.

                                       Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee ld. PP,
                                       Mr. Swapan Banerjee.
                                       Mr. Saryati Datta,
                                                          ...for the State.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits as

follows. The appellant was sentenced to six years' rigorous imprisonment

with a fine for allegedly committing an offence under Section 6 of the

POCSO Act. Although the victim girl was deaf and dumb, yet her evidence

was not videographed. The treating doctor's evidence was not properly

appreciated. Also there were other inconsistencies in the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses. The appellant has already undergone three years'

imprisonment.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits

as follows. The paper book is ready and the appeal can be heard out on any

date. Sufficient evidence was present for conviction of the appellant. The

evidence of the victim girl was clinching, among other things. The victim

identified the appellant in Court. What is surprising is that the learned Trial

judge had decided to impose a sentence less than the minimum

imprisonment prescribed i.e. 10 years in respect of Section 6 of the POCSO

Act. In this case, he erroneously relied on some decisions of the Hon'ble

Apex Court and applied the outcomes without taking into consideration the

facts and circumstances of each case. A rule for enhancement of sentence

should be issued in this case.

I have heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the

appellant and the State and have perused the impugned judgment and order

and copies of evidence annexed.

Considering the evidence of the victim, PW3 and the evidence of the

interpreter, PW2 and after considering the other evidence on record, I am

not inclined to release the appellant on bail.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence being CRAN

1 of 2018 (Old CRAN 3630 of 2018) is dismissed.

The reason given by the learned Trial Judge in imposing a sentence

less than the imprisonment prescribed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is

far from convincing and does not even relate properly to the facts of the

present case. This, juxtaposed with the nature and quality of evidence

adduced, warrants the issuance of a Rule for enhancement of sentence.

In view of the above, I issue a Rule directing the appellant Sitaram

Roy @ Dolu to show cause as to why the sentence imposed upon him under

Section 6 of the POCSO Act shall not be enhanced to the maximum

sentence imposable. The Rule is made returnable two weeks hence. The

Rule shall appear along with the criminal appeal for hearing.

The Office is directed to take necessary steps.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties

expeditiously, if applied for.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)