Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6888 of 2018 Appellant :- Kuldeep Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the record.
The appellant is assailing the validity and veracity of judgment and order dated 30.10.2018 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 8, Farrukhabad in S.S.T. No. 39 of 2015 (State Vs. Kuldeep and others) in which the appellant is convicted u/s 363 IPC sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment 6 months additional simple imprisonment, under section 366 IPC, 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment 6 months additional simple imprisonment, under section 376 IPC, 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default of payment 6 months additional simple imprisonment, under section 368, 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment 6 months additional simple imprisonment and under section 3/4 POCSO Act, 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default of payment 6 months additional simple imprisonment and all the sentence would run concurrently.
Submission made by the counsel for the appellant that on her own violation and accord victim joined the company of appellant and thereafter visited many of the place with him. She was examined as PW-2 and in her testimony she has stated that she is a student of class 9th. It is further contended that after receiving phone call from the appellant, she went to tube well from where both of them went to Kamalganj from where they went to Chibramau and thereafter visited to many places of Kuldeep's sister. Not only this, she was remain in the company of the appellant for 15-20 good days without any resistance or alarm. During this period, they have established physical relationship. In her cross examination as PW-2, she has admitted that there was a love affair between them and on her own, she join the company of the appellant. As per medical report, her age comes around 18 years, she is a major girl, who understands all the actions taken by her. Now she is a married woman with somebody else. It is next submitted that she appears to be a consenting party of the entire episode. He lastly submitted that the applicant was on bail during the trial and he has not misused the liberty of bail, so the applicant should be enlarged on bail.
Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the appellant so he should not be entitled to be enlarged on bail.
After having heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I find that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Let the the appellant Kuldeep, be released on bail in S.S.T. No. 39 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 386 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad during the pendency of the appeal, on his each furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Subject to the appellant depositing 50% of the fine within a period of one month and the remaining amount of fine shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal.
On acceptance of bail bonds, the lower court record shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record of this appeal.
Let the paper book be prepared.
List this appeal for hearing in due course.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 Nisha