Dismissed¶22

Munshi Lal Mahto Alias Babu Lal Mahto v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Apr 2024Cr.A(SJ)/582/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court affirms conviction under Section 8 POCSO Act for groping/sexual assault of 14-year-old minor girl grazing cattle; prosecutrix solitary testimony sufficient though non-eye-witness witnesses; monetary demand Rs.4000/- victim-compensation allegation not a ground to discard testimony or infer false implication; medical-evidence objection to breast scratches not sustained; appeal dismissed, bail cancelled, surrender within two weeks ordered; impugned judgment 09.03.2017, Special Judge POCSO Ramgarh; decided 04.04.2024.

What did the court decide?

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the evidence on record, this Court finds no cogent reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the trial Court. ¶19

Munshi Lal Mahto Alias Babu Lal Mahto Vs The… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's contention that there was no intention to outrage the modesty of the girl — the appellant claiming he had attempted to rescue the victim when a lizard had fallen on her — defeats the conviction under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. +3 more

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the evidence on record, this Court finds no cogent reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the trial Court.

¶19

Key takeaways

In case of sexual assault, a solitary account of the prosecutrix is sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused, provided her testimony is cogent, reliable and trustworthy; applied to the 14-year-old victim whose cogent account was supported by twelve material witnesses besides the informant and the Investigating Officer, the latter witnesses being witnesses to attending circumstances (including the subsequent panchayat) rather than eye-witnesses.ratio¶20
The mere raising of some monetary demand after the incident, characterized as victim compensation, is not a basis on which the testimony of the victim and other witnesses can be discarded; the conviction was affirmed notwithstanding such demand.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jharkhand High Court (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.), by judgment dated 04.04.2024 in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 582 of 2017, affirms the conviction and sentence imposed on Munshi Lal Mahto @ Babulal Mahto under Section 8 of the POCSO Act for groping a 14-year-old girl while she was grazing cattle (incident 12.06.2015; Barlanga P.S. Case No. 23 of 2015), upholding the 09.03.2017 judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge POCSO, Ramgarh (G.R. No. 2527 of 2015). Holds that a solitary, cogent, reliable and trustworthy account of the minor prosecutrix suffices to bring home the charge although the remaining witnesses were not eye-witnesses; and that a post-incident monetary demand (Rs.4000/-) characterized as victim compensation is not a basis to discard the victim's testimony or that of other witnesses. Appeal dismissed; bail cancelled; appellant directed to surrender within two weeks to serve the remaining sentence.

¶1

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 582 of 2017

¶2

{Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.03.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge POCSO, Ramgarh in G.R. No. 2527 of 2015 (POCSO)}

¶3

¶4

Munshi Lal Mahto @ Babulal Mahto … …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … …. Respondent

¶5

P R E S E N T

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

----For the Appellant : Mr. Asit Baran Mahto, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ruby Pandey, APP

By Court :

Heard the parties

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section 8 of POCSO Act is under challenge in the instant appeal.

¶12

The prosecutrix is minor girl aged 14 year and as per the FIR lodged on 14.06.2015, on 12.06.2015 while she had gone for grazing her cattle, the appellant came from behind and caught hold her laid her on the ground and started groping her breast. She raised alarm and somehow she could wriggle out and save herself and fled away. On 13.06.2015 a Panchayati was convened but nothing could be decided in the meeting. Consequently, FIR being Barlanga P.S. Case No. 23 of 2015 was lodged under Section 8 of the POCSO Act against the appellant.

¶13

Police on investigation found the case true and submitted charge sheet. After cognizance, charge was framed and the appellant was put on trial for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376 and 341 of Indian Penal Code.

¶14

Altogether fifteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the relevant documents were adduced into evidence, marked as exhibits. After prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The defence is of innocence and the occurrence has been denied.

¶15

Judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been assailed on the ground that there was no intention to outrage the modesty of the girl and the appellant had attempted to rescue the victim when a lizard had fallen on her. It is further argued that the prosecutrix has deposed that she has received some scratches on her breast, but it is uncorroborated by any medical evidence. It is also argued that the monetary demand had been made by the informant and on non-fulfillment of demand, false case was lodged. PW2, who is the maternal-aunt of the victim girl,

¶16

¶17

has stated that a demand of Rs.4000/- was made to which the appellant did not agree.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that there is no past enmity or any ground on which inference of false implication can be drawn that a false case has been registered to extort money from the appellant.

¶19

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the evidence on record this Court is of the view that there is no cogent reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the trial Court.

¶20

It is settled proposition of law that in case of sexual assault, a solitary account of the prosecutrix is sufficient to bring home charge against the accused, provided that her testimony is cogent, reliable and trustworthy. The victim is 14 year old girl and has given cogent account of evidence wherein she has stated that she had gone out for grazing cattle. The appellant sexually assaulted her. Altogether twelve material witnesses have been examined, apart from the informant and the Investigating Officer who have all supported the prosecution case. The other witnesses are not eye witnesses but they are witnesses to the attending circumstance after the incidence like the crowd that had collected in the panchayat that was held subsequent to the incidence. PW1, who is the mother of the victim, has deposed that after the incidence, her daughter came and informed about it. Villager Sita Devi (PW3), Jamila Khatoon (PW4) and other co-villagers have also supported the prosecution case. Merely because some monetary demand was raised after the incidence as victim compensation, can be the basis to discard the testimony of the victim and other witness.

¶21

I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is accordingly affirmed.

¶22

The appeal is dismissed and the appellant’s bail is cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the court below within two weeks to serve the remaining part of sentence.

¶23

Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.

¶24

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶25

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 04^th April, 2024 NAFR/ AKT/Satayendra

¶26

Uploaded

¶27

Munshi Lal Mahto Alias Babu Lal Mahto v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munshi Lal Mahto Alias Babu Lal Mahto v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamsher Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Balram Sahu And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Khoshi Alias Khosi Vs State of Jharkhand

Mahtab Alam Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jishu Murmu Vs State of Jharkhand

Ehtar Seikh Vs State of Jharkhand