Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/386/2022 on 16 June, 2023
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
CRLA No.386 of 2022
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel is present
for the applicant/appellant.
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rawal, learned AGA for
the State.
2. Applicant/appellant has been convicted by
the judgment and order dated 30.06.2022 passed by
learned Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Special Sessions
Trial No.20 of 2019 State vs. Sachin under Section
376 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act whereby
he has been awarded rigorous imprisonment of
eight years with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default
of payment of fine additional three month's
rigorous imprisonment has been imposed upon him.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on bail
application.
4. It is the case here that victim is only five
years of age and she was raped by the
applicant/appellant, who at the time of incident,
was about 21 years of age.
5. The victim has fully corroborated the
prosecution story, when examined as P.W.1 before
the learned trial court and there was no
contradiction arrived at even in the detailed cross
examination. Further the evidence of Sangeeta
P.W.6 (Bua) also corroborated the incident and
found the victim and the applicant/appellant in
weird condition on the fateful day.
6. It has been argued on behalf of the
applicant/appellant that it is not a case of
penetrative sexual assault and, therefore, the
applicant/appellant has wrongly been convicted
under Section 376 of IPC with the aid of Section 4
of POCSO Act.
7. From meticulous examination of the
statement of the witnesses, it is culled out that the
allegation levelled against the applicant/appellant
comes within the "Rape". Under Section 375 of
IPC the definition of rape has been widened and
even not only the penetration into vagina but also
the penetration into mouth would amount to rape.
The victim has categorically stated that the
applicant/appellant put his private part into her
mouth.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant further
submitted that the applicant/appellant has
undergone more than four years and six months in
incarnation while he was awarded sentence of eight
years. On this ground, learned counsel for the
applicant/appellant tried to convince the Court to
enlarge the applicant on bail.
9. This argument of learned counsel for the
applicant/appellant deserves to be rejected for
simple reason that this Court is inclined to hear the
appeal finally.
10. In this view of the matter, I do not find any
ground for enlarging the applicant/appellant on bail
at this stage.
11. The Bail Application No.02 of 2022 is
hereby rejected. The observation made herein
above are only for the purpose of deciding the bail
application and would not influence the merits of
the appeal for final hearing.
12. List this criminal appeal for final hearing on
21.07.2023.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
16.06.2023
Arti
