Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 181 (JHR)

Devraj Mahato v. State of Jharkhand

2024-02-20

NAVNEET KUMAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 26.06.2019 and order of sentence dated 28.06.2019 passed in Special POCSO Case No. 10 of 2017 arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 187 of 2016 by the learned Special Judge (Children Court), Jamtara whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 376(1) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence of imprisonment for a period of additional 3 months under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 2. The prosecution case is based on the written report of the victim girl dated 07.12.2016 before the Officer-In-Charge, Narayanpur Police Station under the district of Jamtara, which is as under: The victim girl aged 17 years stated that she was the resident of village Ghati Shimla and about 1½ years earlier, accused Devraj Mahato, resident of village Salgadih met with her in Sabanpur High School and told that he would marry her and thereafter, he established physical relation with her. He committed rape several times upon her. She further alleged that on 26.11.2016, her father informed to the father of Devraj that his son (the appellant) had been committing rape upon her for several months then the father of the appellant assured to get his son married with the informant and thereafter, a Panchayati was called on 04.12.2016 but the father of accused did not participate in the Panchayati and he refused to perform the marriage of his son with the informant. She further alleged that Devraj had committed rape (sexual assault) upon her on false pretext of marriage. 3. On the basis of aforesaid written application of victim girl, Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 187 of 2016 was registered on 07.12.2016 for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC against Devraj Mahato. During investigation, on the basis of materials, the accused was found juvenile and he was declared juvenile vide order dated 06.01.2017 and his entire case record was sent to J.J. Board, Jamtara where after submission of charge-sheet under Section 376 of IPC, the learned J.J. Board, Jamtara took cognizance of the offence under Section 376 (1) of IPC against juvenile-in-conflict with law Devraj Mahato. 4. 4. Further, the above-named Child-in-conflict with law the appellant Devraj Mahato was declared Child between the age category of 16-18 years and after preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Juvenile Justice Board, Jamtara sent the entire case record to the Children Court vide order dated 26.05.2017 for regular trial under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act 2015. 5. On 21.11.2017 charges were framed and explained to above named Child-in-conflict with law in Hindi for the offences punishable u/s 376 (1) of IPC and U/s 4 of POCSO Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The learned trial court after conducting full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as above, which is under challenge in this appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State. Arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant: 8. Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction is bad in law in view of the fact that all the independent witnesses namely P.W.1 Umacharan Shaw, P.W.2 Raghunath Mahato, P.W.3 Shibu Mandal and P.W.9 Sonaram Mahato have been declared hostile. They have not supported the case of the prosecution. Further, it has been submitted that on the date when the F.I.R was registered i.e., 07.12.2016 the age of the victim was 18 years 10 months and 18 days as per Ext. A, which is admission register of upgraded Middle School, Ghati Shimla showing the date of birth of the victim as 19.01.1998 and since it is alleged that the appellant had committed rape upon her on the pretext of marriage about 1 ½ years ago from the date of written report dated 07.12.2016 (F.I.R.), therefore, the victim might not have attained the age of majority at that time but she had sufficient understanding about the sexual act under the pretext of marriage and this aspect has not been appreciated by the learned court below. Further, it has also been pointed that on medical examination the age of the victim has been assessed to be more than 19 years when she was medically examined as per the Medical Examination report dated 08.12.2016 i.e., on the very next date of the lodging of the F.I.R. Further, it has also been contended that the appellant was juvenile at the time of commission of offence aged between 16-18 years and therefore, in the light of the gravity of the offence the matter was referred by the Juvenile Justice Board to the Children court for proper trial of this appellant. It has further been submitted that the appellant has already remained in custody for about 5 years and therefore, lenient view may also be taken in awarding the sentence by affording one opportunity to the appellant in view of the fact that the victim being 17-18 years of age was willingly and voluntarily made a physical relationship with the appellant on the pretext of marriage, which is an admitted case of the prosecution and when the appellant refused to marry her then the case was instituted. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and fit to be set aside. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State. 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and accordingly the appellant was convicted as above and there is no legal point to interfere in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Learned A.P.P. has also pointed out from Ext.A, which has been proved and brought on record by the appellant himself in order to ascertain the age of the victim, from which it appears that the age of the victim was 18 years 10 months and 18 days on the date of lodging of the F.I.R i.e., 07.12.2016 and the offence of rape, as per the victim girl was being committed since 1 ½ years before the date of lodging of the F.I.R and thus she was very much minor below 18 years of age when the appellant committing penetrative sexual assault with the victim under the pretext of marriage and therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and there is no illegality in it. Appraisal & Findings 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case including the Lower Court Record. 11. It is found that the prosecution has examined altogether 9 witnesses, who are as under: 1. P.W.1 Umacharan Shaw 2. P.W.2 Raghunath Mahato 3. P.W.3 Shibu Mandal 4. P.W.4 Sudhir Mandal 5. P.W.5 the victim girl 6. P.W.6 Ritlal Mandal 7. P.W.7 Dr. Manjula Murmu 8. P.W.8 Surendra Kumar Singh (I.O.) 9. P.W.9 Sonaram Mahato. 12. Following documents have been marked as exhibits on behalf of the prosecution: 1. Ext.1 Signature of P.W.4 on Jimmanama (handing over the victim to her father) 2. Ext.2 Signature of victim girl on written application. 3. Ext.3 Signature of victim girl on her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C 4. Ext.4 Medical Examination Report. 5. Ext.4/1 Supplementary Medical Examination Report. 6. Ext.5 Endorsement on registration of F.I.R on Written application. 7. Ext.6 Formal F.I.R 8. Ext.7 Police requisition for medical ex report. 9. Ext.8 Police requisition for supplementary medical examination report. 10. Mark X for identification: Photo copy of decision in Panchayati 11. Mark X/1 for identification: Signature of witness on photocopy of Panchnama. 13. Defence has examined two witnesses on behalf of the defence: 1. D.W.1 Laldeo Das 2. D.W.-2 Khagen Mahato Following document has been marked on behalf of the defence: Ext. A- Admission register of Upgraded Middle School, Ghati Shimla showing the date of birth of victim girl as 19.01.1998. 14. 13. Defence has examined two witnesses on behalf of the defence: 1. D.W.1 Laldeo Das 2. D.W.-2 Khagen Mahato Following document has been marked on behalf of the defence: Ext. A- Admission register of Upgraded Middle School, Ghati Shimla showing the date of birth of victim girl as 19.01.1998. 14. At the outset this Court evaluates the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties to determine the age of the victim at the time of commission of offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act). In her written report dated 07.12.2016 of F.I.R. (Ext.6), the victim disclosed her age as 17(seventeen) years. It is found that the appellant had first time sexually exploited the victim girl by committing penetrative sexual assault upon her on the promise of marriage about one and half years ago from the date of F.I.R. i.e., 07.12.2016. The appellant himself has adduced evidence on the point of age of victim by getting proved Ext. A which is admission register of Upgraded Middle School, Ghati Simla showing the date of birth of victim girl as 19.01.1998. Since Ext. A is the admitted document and duly proved by the witness D.W.1 (Laldeo Das, Principal of Upgraded Middle School) and brought on record by the appellant himself, as such the date of birth of the victim undisputedly is 19.01.1998. Consequently the appellant had for the first time committed offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act when she was minor under 18 years of age inasmuch as the first time offence was committed about one and half years ago from the date of F.I.R i.e., 07.12.2016 under promise of marriage and thereafter several times repeatedly the victim girl being the minor was sexually exploited under pretext of marriage. 15. Further, this Court proceeds to appraise the testimonies of the victim P.W.5. She has fully supported the case of the prosecution. She stated that she had met with the appellant 1 ½ years earlier prior to the date of lodging of this case which has been lodged on 07.12.2016 and became friend and the appellant forcibly committed rape upon her by taking her away in Narayanpur Jungle. She has fully supported the case of the prosecution. She stated that she had met with the appellant 1 ½ years earlier prior to the date of lodging of this case which has been lodged on 07.12.2016 and became friend and the appellant forcibly committed rape upon her by taking her away in Narayanpur Jungle. Further, she stated that the appellant promised her to marry but later on refused to marry her and as such appellant had been committing rape upon her under the false pretext of marriage and when he denied, a Panchayati was called on 04.12.2016 in which he did not turn up. The photocopy of the Panchayati has been marked as “X” for identification. It is also found from her depositions that her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, which has been marked as Ext. 3 and she fully supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C also. She had also stated that she was 15 years at the time of occurrence. The victim identified her signature on written report dated 07.12.2016 which has been marked as Ext.1 She further stated that at the time of filing case, she was student of Class X. She stated that she was medically examined by the doctor. She also stated that the appellant had promised to marry her in the temple but finally refused. In her cross examination, it is found that defence could not elicit any material fact from her mouth to disbelieve her version that the appellant had been assaulting her sexually with the victim girl P.W.5 when she was minor and exploited her under the pretext of marriage for about one and half years and later on, he refused to marry her. 16. P.W.1 Umacharan Shaw has deposed that he does not know the victim girl. He identified Devraj Mahato. Although he had no knowledge about the occurrence but he heard that a Panchayati was called in the village for the matter of boy and girl. This witness has been declared hostile. 17. P.W.2 Raghunath Mahato has deposed that he does know the victim but he knew Devraj Mahato. He further admitted that Panchayati was called on 04.12.2016 and he participated in that Panchayati but he could not tell the reason of Panchayati. This witness has been declared hostile. 18. This witness has been declared hostile. 17. P.W.2 Raghunath Mahato has deposed that he does know the victim but he knew Devraj Mahato. He further admitted that Panchayati was called on 04.12.2016 and he participated in that Panchayati but he could not tell the reason of Panchayati. This witness has been declared hostile. 18. P.W. 3 Shibu Mandal has deposed that occurrence is of the year, 2016. He was going to take oil on his motorcycle and he saw that near Salgadih School, Devraj and victim girl were talking with each other, then he informed this matter to the father of victim girl. The father of victim girl went to the house of Devraj Mahato and asked his father, who assured to perform marriage his son with victim girl. Then Panchayati was called but he did not participate in the Panchayati then this case was lodged. This witness has also been declared hostile. 19. P.W.4 Sudhir Mandal is the father of victim, who has deposed that victim is his daughter. The occurrence is of about two years earlier and at that time, the age of his daughter was 15-16 years. He is a driver and he had gone outside for driving and whenever he gets free time, he comes to his house. His wife disclosed her that Devraj, who was the classmate of victim, had established physical relationship with victim on false pretext of marriage and when he got this information, he went to the house of Devraj to meet with his father, who assured to perform the marriage of his son with victim but after some days, he again, went there, but he refused to perform marriage of his son. He called a Panchayeti on 04.12.2016 but Devraj and his family members did not come. Thereafter, he went to Police station along with his daughter and lodged this case. 20. P.W.6 Ritlal Mandal has deposed that occurrence is of the year, 2016. The father of Devraj came to his house and enquired about the victim girl. He told him that she was the daughter of Sudhir Mandal, then he disclosed that his son and victim girl loved each other, that is why he sent his son to Jamtara. He told him to convince the father of victim then he went to the house of victim girl, where victim girl disclosed him, that Devraj has ruined her. He told him that she was the daughter of Sudhir Mandal, then he disclosed that his son and victim girl loved each other, that is why he sent his son to Jamtara. He told him to convince the father of victim then he went to the house of victim girl, where victim girl disclosed him, that Devraj has ruined her. She disclosed that he repeatedly established physical relation with her on false pretext of marriage about 1 and 1/2 years. Thereafter, he went to the house of Devraj along with the father of victim, where he denied and told for Panchayati but he did not attend the Panchayati. In Panchayati, a paper was prepared by Mukhia and he also put his signature. This witness has stated that at that time, the age of victim was about 17 years. 21. P.W.7 Dr. Manjula Murma stated that on 08.12.2016 she was posted as Medical Officer in Sadar Hospital, Jamtara and on that day she examined the victim girl and found that- She was short built girl, she had 14 teeth in upper and lower jaw. There was no mark of injuries over whole body, no stain or no seminal fluids are found. Secondary sexual characters are well developed. On examination of external genitalia or perennial area, no mark of injuries, no seminal fluids or blood stains, no matting of pubic hairs. On internal examination of genitalia, there was rupture of hymen, there was injury in fourchette, oozing of blood present size 0.5 m.m. x 0.5 m.m. x 0.5 m.m. Advised vaginal smear taken and sent to Pathological Department, Sadar Hospital, Jamtara to see for the presence of spermatozoa. Pregnancy test of urine was advised. X-ray Pelvis A.P. and lateral view. X-ray wrist A.P. and lateral view Pathological report attached. P.T.U. Negative. Vaginal swab smear was taken for microscopic examination to see the presence of spermatozoa. On microscopic examination: - No spermatozoa either alive or dead was found in the even vaginal swab smear. Opinion reserved. She had proved the medical examination report which has been marked as Ext. 4. Supplementary Injury Report dated 20.12.2016 of victim girl: Report received from Modern Diagnostic Center; Rupnarayanpur X-ray Plate No. 1617/1720 dated 08.12.2016. (i) Wrist Distal epiphysis of radius and ulna are fused. Pisi form appeared. Pelvis (i) Iliac crest partially fused (ii) Femoral head fused. Opinion reserved. She had proved the medical examination report which has been marked as Ext. 4. Supplementary Injury Report dated 20.12.2016 of victim girl: Report received from Modern Diagnostic Center; Rupnarayanpur X-ray Plate No. 1617/1720 dated 08.12.2016. (i) Wrist Distal epiphysis of radius and ulna are fused. Pisi form appeared. Pelvis (i) Iliac crest partially fused (ii) Femoral head fused. Impression: Age more than 19 years Opinion: According to all above examination and dentition and X-ray Reports, her age is more than 19 years. The injury in vaginal fourchette indicates that rape or intercourse may be done. Mark of Identification- Old mark of abscess in left knee in right side. She has also proved supplementary medical examination report which has been marked as Ext. 4/1. 22. P.W.-8 Surendra Kumar Singh is the I.O. of the case. He has identified the endorsement for registration of F.I.R. in the writing of Officer-in-charge, Surendra Prasad, which has been marked as Ext. 5. He has proved the formal F.I.R., which has been marked as Ext. 6. He issued requisition for medical examination of victim, which he identifies, which has been marked as Ext. 7. Victim was medically examined and he received medical report. In para 4 of his deposition, he deposed that he inspected the P.O., which is an old house near Sabanpur Upgraded Middle School, which is an abandoned house near the school, which is without door, where the victim alleged that she was raped by Devraj Mahato. He has described the boundary of that old building. 23. P.W.9 Sonaram Mahato has been declared hostile. 24. Recapitulating the aforesaid testimonies of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and other evidences available on record, it is well founded that the learned Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the victim was minor at the time of commission of offence when the appellant had committed rape with the victim for the first time under the pretext of marriage inasmuch as it is evident from the Ext. A, which is admission register of upgraded middle school, Ghati Shimla, which is duly proved by Lal Deo Das, Head Master of the school, who has been examined as D.W.1, where the date of birth of the victim has been mentioned as 19.01.1998. A, which is admission register of upgraded middle school, Ghati Shimla, which is duly proved by Lal Deo Das, Head Master of the school, who has been examined as D.W.1, where the date of birth of the victim has been mentioned as 19.01.1998. Thus it is found that the age of the victim was 18 years 10 months and 18 days on the date of lodging of the F.I.R i.e. on 07.12.2016 and as such, it is found from the version of the victim that the appellant had been sexually assaulting her under the pretext of marriage prior to lodging of the F.I.R i.e., about 1 ½ years back and the learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the victim was minor under the age of 18 years and therefore, the plea of the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that she was matured at the time of occurrence is not tenable in the eyes of law from the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant himself i.e., Ext. A, which is admission register of the upgraded middle school Ghati Shimla showing the date of birth of victim girl as 19.01.1998. Further, it is found that although P.W.1., P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.9 have been declared hostile because they have not supported the case of the prosecution, but P.W.4 the father of the victim Sudhir Mandal and the independent witness covillager P.W.6 Ritlal Mandal have fully supported the versions of the victim girl P.W.5 i.e., the case of the prosecution by stating that when her daughter was minor this appellant repeatedly established physical relationship forcibly on the pretext of marriage for about 1 ½ years continuously and when they went to the house of the appellant for solmization of marriage then he refused and also when the Panchayati was held, the appellant and his father (D.W.2) did not attend the same and document of the Panchayati was prepared and the same has been marked as “X” for identification. Thus, the versions of P.W.4 and P.W.6 had also proved and established that the appellant had been exploiting the victim, who was minor, by sexually assaulting her repeatedly for 1 ½ years on the pretext of marriage within the meaning of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Thus, the versions of P.W.4 and P.W.6 had also proved and established that the appellant had been exploiting the victim, who was minor, by sexually assaulting her repeatedly for 1 ½ years on the pretext of marriage within the meaning of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Further, version of P.W.7, who is the doctor and has been examined in this case is falling in line with the deposition of P.W.5, P.W.4, P.W.6. Further, P.W.8-Investigating Officer, who has been examined on behalf of the prosecution has proved the formal F.I.R and also the written complaint submitted by the victim – P.W.5 and place of occurrence and after completion of investigation he has submitted the charge-sheet against this appellant and no fault has been found to create doubt on the case of prosecution. 25. On the other hand, the appellant has also examined two defence witnesses being D.W.1, Laldeo Das who is the head master of the upgraded middle school, Ghati Shimla and he has proved the admission register where the date of birth of the victim has been mentioned as 19.01.1998 from which it appears that the victim was minor at the time of occurrence vide Ext.A. D.W. 2 Khagen Mahto is the father of the appellant and he has stated that his son was studying at the time when the father of the victim had come to his house for negotiation of marriage of his son (appellant) with his daughter (Victim) whereupon he replied that his son was studying and he could not perform marriage and thereafter his son has been implicated in this case. From the version of the father of the victim, it is also evident that the appellant had been exploiting the victim-P.W.5 by committing forcible penetrative sexual assault on the pretext of marriage for about 1 ½ years when she was minor under 18 years of age and thus the offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act is established. From the version of the father of the victim, it is also evident that the appellant had been exploiting the victim-P.W.5 by committing forcible penetrative sexual assault on the pretext of marriage for about 1 ½ years when she was minor under 18 years of age and thus the offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act is established. In view of categorical provisions of POCSO Act particularly with respect to the presumption of committing offence under Section 29 of the POCSO Act and further presumption of culpable mental state under Section 30 of the POCSO Act when the victim girl is certainly minor under 18 years of age, it is well proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had been exploiting the victim by sexually assaulting her repeatedly for about one and half years and thus the appellant is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Nothing has been brought on record as evidence on behalf of appellant to prove contrary to the presumptions under Section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act in the light of glaring and impeccable evidences adduced on behalf of prosecution. 26. It is settled principle of law as also evident from the categorical provisions of law either under I.P.C or under POCSO Act, the consent of a minor, if the woman is below the age of eighteen, is immaterial. In the present case it is admitted fact that the victim is minor below 18 years of age when the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault within the meaning of section 4 of the POCSO Act under the promise of marriage. 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, under the circumstances of the case, has categorically observed, with respect to the offence of committing rape with a minor under 18 years of age, as under in Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar Vrs. State of Gujarat (2015) 7 SCC 359 : 14. The first thing which is to be borne in mind is that the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age. On this fact, clause sixthly of Section 375 IPC would get attracted making her consent for sexual intercourse as immaterial and inconsequential. It reads as follows: "375. Rape. State of Gujarat (2015) 7 SCC 359 : 14. The first thing which is to be borne in mind is that the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age. On this fact, clause sixthly of Section 375 IPC would get attracted making her consent for sexual intercourse as immaterial and inconsequential. It reads as follows: "375. Rape. A man is said to commit 'rape' who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions- *** Sixthly. With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation.-Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape." 15. The legislature has introduced the aforesaid provision with sound rationale and there is an important objective behind such a provision. It is considered that a minor is incapable of thinking rationally and giving any consent. For this reason, whether it is civil law or criminal law, the consent of a minor is not treated as valid consent. Here the provision is concerning a girl child who is not only minor but less than 16 years of age. A minor girl can be easily lured into giving consent for such an act without understanding the implications thereof, Such a consent therefore, is treated as not an informed consent given after understanding the pros and cons as well as consequences of the intended action. Therefore, as a necessary corollary, duty is cast on the other person in not taking advantage of the so-called consent given by a girl who is less than 16 years of age. Even when there is a consent of a girl below 16 years, the other partner in the sexual act is treated as criminal who has committed the offence of rape. The law leaves no choice to him and he cannot plead that the act was consensual. A fortiori, the so- called consent of the prosecutrix below 16 years of age cannot be treated as mitigating circumstance. 16. Once we put the things in right perspective in the manner stated above, we have to treat it as a case where the appellant has committed rape of a minor girl which is regarded as a heinous crime. Such an act of sexual assault has to be abhorred. 16. Once we put the things in right perspective in the manner stated above, we have to treat it as a case where the appellant has committed rape of a minor girl which is regarded as a heinous crime. Such an act of sexual assault has to be abhorred. If the consent of minor is treated as a mitigating circumstance, it may lead to disastrous consequences. This view of ours gets strengthened when we keep in mind the letter and spirit behind the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.” 28. In the backdrop of aforesaid observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court it is well founded in the present case that the victim is minor under 18 years of age and the appellant continued to exploit her by committing the offence of “penetrative sexual assault” continuously for one and half years and when the appellant refused to marry her, the victim categorically stated that the appellant has ruined her life under the false promise of marriage. Section 90 of IPC provides that any consent given under a misconception of fact, would not be considered as valid consent, so far as the provisions of Section 375 IPC are concerned and thus such a physical relationship would tantamount to committing rape. Moreover in the present case where admittedly the victim is minor under 18 years of age (Ext.A.), her consent under the promise of marriage is no consent in the eyes of law. 29. In view of the appreciation of the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties including the testimonies of the witnesses and the documentary evidences vis-a-vis the provisions of law and above discussed case laws, , this Court comes to the conclusion that the learned Trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the IPC and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. This Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment of conviction passed by the learned court below. 30. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 26.06.2019 passed in Special POCSO Case No. 10 of 2017 arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 187 of 2016 by Learned Special Judge (Children Court), Jamtara is hereby upheld. 31. This Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment of conviction passed by the learned court below. 30. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 26.06.2019 passed in Special POCSO Case No. 10 of 2017 arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 187 of 2016 by Learned Special Judge (Children Court), Jamtara is hereby upheld. 31. So far as the order of sentence dated 28.06.2019 is concerned, appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the IPC and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence of additional 3 months imprisonment under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and no sentence has been passed under Section 376(1) of the IPC. In this view of the matter, it is found that the learned court below has awarded the ‘minimum mandatory sentence’ of 7 years against the appellant and therefore, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the order of sentence and accordingly the order of sentence dated 28.06.2019 passed in Special POCSO Case No. 10 of 2017 arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 187 of 2016 by the learned Special Judge (Children Court), Jamtara, is also hereby upheld. 32. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 33. Let the Lower Court Records be transmitted to the learned Court below.