Jharkhand High Court
Jai Prakash Lala @ Jhulan Lala @ Jai ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 May, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.121 of 2020
[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 22.01.2020
passed by learned Special Judge-POCSO, Dhanbad, in Special POCSO Case No.07
of 2018 (arising out of Loyabad P.S. Case No.47 of 2017)]
------
Jai Prakash Lala @ Jhulan Lala @ Jai Prakash Lal, son of Jagarnath Lala
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, APP
------
By Court :- Heard learned counsel for the parties.
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction under Sections 341, 354A IPC
and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, passed by learned Special Judge-POCSO, Dhanbad, in
Special POCSO Case No.07 of 2018 (arising out of Loyabad P.S. Case No.47 of 2017)
whereby and where under he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
five years with fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo RI
for a period of three months under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and simple imprisonment
of one month under Section 341 of the IPC. However, both the sentences to run
concurrently.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant's son had met with an accident on
20.11.2017 and her other family members had gone to the hospital. Victim was all alone
and taking advantage of it, on 21.11.2017 the appellant entered into her house and
molested the victim by improperly touching her breast with sexual intent. Alarm was
raised by the victim and she started crying. When her father returned from the hospital,
she disclosed about the incidence to him.
3. On the basis of the written report, Loyabad P.S. Case No.47 of 2017 was registered under
Section 341, 323, 354-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet and thereafter the accused was put on
trial for the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 354-A of the IPC and Section 8 of the
POCSO Act.
5. Altogether eight witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and her
statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. and other relevant documents have been adduced
and marked as Exhibits.
6. Judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that there is no
corroborative evidence of the prosecutrix and the independent witness(es), namely P.W. 2
and P.W. 3 have been declared hostile.
7. It is submitted that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the CDR report of the mobile
has not been brought on record by the prosecution.
8. On the point of sentence, it is submitted that there is no past conviction against the
appellant and he as a boy of about 30 years at the time of incidence.
9. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that
the prosecutrix [P.W. 1] has deposed that the appellant taking advantage of her loneliness,
has tried to molest her and had also improperly touched her.
10. Having considered submission advanced on both sides, this Court is of the view that law
is settled on the point that judgment of conviction can be returned on the basis of solitary
account of prosecution if it is reliable and trustworthy. In the present case, the victim was
a minor girl age about 16 years and the case was lodged one day after the incidence
which cannot be said to be an inordinate delay.
11. Testimony of the victim is duly corroborated by her statement recorded under Section
164 Cr. P. C. in terms of Section 157 of the Evidence Act. She has been examined at
length and further in para 14, she has deposed that there was no past enmity with the
appellant. It is also deposed that on earlier occasion, he had not committed such incidence
with her. There is a ring of truth in her account and her testimony is wholly reliable and
there is no reason to doubt the veracity of her account.
As such, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of conviction which is
accordingly affirmed.
However, on the point of sentence, considering the fact that the there is no past
conviction proved against the appellant, his sentence is modified to three years RI under
Section 8 of POCSO Act and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of fine, SI of one
month. S.I of six months is awarded under Section 341 of IPC. Both the substantive
sentences to run currently.
Bail of the appellant is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the learned
Trial Court so as to serve remaining part of his sentence.
Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed with modification of sentence.
Let LCR along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court concerned at
once.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
Dated 10.05.2024.
Pawan/Sandeep
