IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA AND THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.983 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
PRASANNA S/O. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDENT OF VIKRAM GOWDA’S SHARAVATHI ESTATE MUDASASI VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT (BY SRI. A.H.BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE BY KARNATAKA BY MUDIGERE POLICE REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU (BY SRI. I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-2) …APPELLANT …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.09.2013 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, CHIKMAGALUR IN SPECIAL CASE (IPC AND PCSO) NO.4/2013 – CONVICTING THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341 AND 376 OF IPC, AND SECTION 4 OF THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012, AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.500/- AND IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 15 DAYS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341 OF IPC AND THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED IS FURTHER SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR LIFE AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.2,00,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR TWO YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376 OF IPC AND THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR LIFE AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.50,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR TWO YEARS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 AND ALL THE SUBSTANTIVE SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, Dr.H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The present appellant who was accused in Special Case (IPC & POCSO) No.4/2013, in the Court of Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Chikmagalur, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “trial Court”), has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2013 and order on sentence dated 11.09.2013, wherein he is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “IPC”) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “POCSO Act”) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and the appellant / accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and all the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, on 08.01.2013, at about 12.00 noon, P.W.1, the alleged victim who is said to be 15 years old in her age appeared before the respondent police and lodged a written complaint as per Ex.P.1. The summary of which is that, the complainant along with her parents and younger sister was residing in coffee plantation of Mr.Jayaprakash Gowda in Mudasasai village, Mudigere and were eking livelihood as coolies. On 06.01.2013, at about 4.00 p.m., she joined by her younger sister went into the coffee plantation in order to fetch some jack fruits. At that time, the accused who was an estate writer of the said estate restrained them by showing a gun which he was holding and closing her mouth, he took her away. Seeing that, her sister Mala ran away from the place. Taking her about 20 feet away from the said place, the accused committed sexual assault upon her. After committing the same, he started threatening her by telling that, he has recorded the act in his cell phone and that he would show those pictures to her friends and other public, in case, if she reveals the incident to any one. Further, she informed her mother about the incident on the next day i.e., 07.01.2013. Thereafter they decided to give a complaint. The said complaint was registered in respondent police station in crime No.3/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 376 of IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “Arms Act”) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
3. The police after completing the investigation filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 376 of IPC, Section 5(H) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 25 of Arms Act.
4. After hearing the accused before charge, the trial Court framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, in order to prove the alleged offences against the accused, the prosecution got examined eighteen witnesses as PW.1 to PW.18 and got marked documents from Exs.P.1 to P.22 and material objects at MO.1 to MO.15. On behalf of the accused, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked. The trial Court after hearing both sides and considering the material evidence and objects placed before it, by its impugned judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2013 and order on sentence dated 11.09.2013, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act and sentenced him accordingly. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal.
5. The lower Court records were called and the same are placed before this Court.
6. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
7. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused in his argument submitted that in the present case, majority of the material witnesses including the alleged victim girl have totally turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. They have denied the alleged occurrence of the offences. However, the trial Court relying upon the evidence of PW.2, who is the younger sister of the victim girl and also the statements of alleged victim girl and her sister said to have given before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “Cr.P.C.,”) has pronounced the judgment of conviction and order on sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the trial Court misinterpreted Section 29 of the POCSO Act and presumption available under the said Section was misinterpreted, which has lead in passing erroneous judgment.
9. The learned State Public Prosecutor-II for respondent in his argument submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the victim girl has given her statement before PW.18 - the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The very same Magistrate himself has appeared and given detailed account of the statements of both the victim girl and her younger sister. Further, the younger sister in her examination- in-chief as PW.2 has supported the case of the prosecution. Added to this, the medical evidence given by PW.9 and PW.10, the doctors, also supported the case of the prosecution. The trial Court since has considered those evidence, has pronounced the judgment of conviction appropriately and the same does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
10. In the instant case, the alleged victim girl was examined as PW.1. After stating that she joined by her parents and younger sister were residing in coffee plantation belonging to CW.5 and eking out their livelihood as coolies, in unequivocal term stated that accused has not done nothing to her and he has not sexually assaulted her. She also stated that she has not given any complaint before the police. However, the police have come near her house and after taking her to the police station had obtained signature on three documents. She did not know the contents of those documents. She further stated that though Exs.P.1 to P.3 bears her signature, she does not know the contents mentioned therein. However, she stated that she was taken before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mudigere, wherein the learned Magistrate has recorded her statement. She categorically stated that she has not been taken by police to M.G.Hospital along with her mother – CW.3.
The witness was permitted to be treated as hostile and at the request of prosecution, she was permitted to be cross-examined. On detailed and searching cross- examination of PW-1, the prosecution could not get any support from her. Though she stated that the statement at Ex.P.5 was her statement given before the learned Magistrate at Mudigere, she stated that the said statement was not read over to her and merely her signature was obtained to the same.
In her cross-examination from the accused side, she admitted the suggestion that while her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., was recorded by the Magistrate, she was tutored by her mother and police, as to what to say in her statement before the Magistrate. She also stated while she was giving statement before the Magistrate, the police were along with her all along and were telling her what should be stated before the Magistrate. She also stated that she has not given any clothes to the police.
11. PW.2 – Kumari Mala, aged about 6 years and who is admittedly the younger sister of PW.1, in her examination-in-chief has stated that on the date of the alleged incident, she along with her elder sister i.e., PW.1 had gone to coffee plantation of CW.5 to fetch some jack fruits, at that time, accused threatened them and closing the mouth of her sister - PW.1 took her from the place and seeing the same, she ran to the house.
Accused also threatened her and made her to run away from the place. The witness has further stated that in Mudigere Court, she has narrated the incident and the same has been recorded by the Magistrate. She has identified her statements given before the Magistrate recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. at Ex.P.6. She was subjected to detailed cross-examination from the accused side, wherein, she has stated that while her statement was recorded at Ex.P.6, the police were also there with her. She also stated that she has put merely her signature in the said statement at Ex.P.6.
12. PW.3 – Manjula, the mother of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4 – Poornima, the elder sister of PW.1, except stating her relation with PWs.1 and 2 has pleaded her total ignorance about the alleged incident rather she has categorically stated that the alleged incident has never occurred. Even after treating this witness as hostile, the prosecution could not get any support from her.
13. PW.5 – M.P.Jayaprakash has stated that he is a coffee planter in Makonahalli village, Mudigere Taluk under whom PW.3 was working. As such, he knows PWs.1 and 2 also. He has stated that on 08.01.2013, he was away from his estate and police informed him over the telephone that the accused had sexually assaulted on PW.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know whether the telephone call received by him was really made by police or by some general public.
14. PW.6 – M.P.Vikram, who is brother of PW.5 has stated that the accused was working as an estate writer in the estate of PW.5. He has stated that PW.3 was working in the estate of PW.5. He knows her as well as PWs.1 and 2 who are her daughters. Though he has stated that the gun at MO.1 belongs to him and it was there in his office as on 07.01.2013, but has pleaded his ignorance whether the said gun was taken by the accused and made use of the same on any date, more particularly, on 06.01.2013.
15. PW.7 – Vishnu and PW.8 – Suresh, though were examined by the prosecution projecting them as mahazar witnesses in the scene of occurrence panchanama and clothes seizure panchanama at Exs.P.2 and P.3 respectively, neither of them have supported the case of the prosecution. Both of them have turned hostile and except stating that the police have obtained their signatures on the panchanamas, they have stated that neither any one much less the victim nor accused was shown nor shown them the spot but PW.1 produced her clothes to the police at the time of mahazar and they do not know the purpose for which the clothes were seized at Ex.P.3.
16. PW.9 – Dr. R.H. Naik, the senior specialist at M.G.Hospital, Chikmagalur, has stated that on 08.01.2013, the victim girl was medically examined by him at the request of the respondent police and she was produced before him with the history of rape said to have been caused on 06.01.2013 at about 4.00 p.m. He examined the said victim girl and he did not notice any external injury over the face, breasts, on inner aspect of the thighs and on external genetaria. However, a small abrasion on the left forearm was noticed by him. He has also given the details of the observation made by him on the examination of the genetaria. Further, he stated that he collected one underwear, pubic hairs, swab from external genetaria. After going through the FSL report produced by the police, he was of the opinion that possibility of forcible penetration of vagina by some object could not be ruled out and stated that he has issued a medical examination certificate in that regard.
He has identified the same at Ex.P.9. The witness has further stated that he has also given further opinion as per Ex.P.10 and stated that in a forcible sexual assault, there may be injury or rupture as stated in Ex.P.9. In the cross-examination, he admitted the suggestion that rupture of hymen may be caused rather other than the sexual intercourse by insertion of foreign body into the private part.
17. PW.10 – Dr. Vidyavathi, who is Medical Officer of M.G.M. Hospital, Mudigere, has stated that at the request of the respondent police, she has medically examined the accused on 09.01.2013 and after her clinical examination, she came to the conclusion that the accused is competent to have a sexual intercourse. In that regard, she identified a medical certificate at Ex.P.11 as the one issued by her.
18. PW.11 – B.A.Thaslim, the Headmaster of Government Junior Primary School, Nandipura, has stated about he giving a date of birth certificate of the victim girl based on the records maintained by the school. He has stated that the date of birth of PW.1 is recorded in the school register as 20.05.1999, which he has certified by a certificate at Ex.P.12.
19. PW.12 – Ms. Chethana, Village Accountant in Mudigere, has stated that based on the request of the police, she has issued a patta extract with respect to land in survey No.98/P2 of the village which depicts the said land stands in the name of one Smt. D.L.Rathna – wife of PW.5. She has identified the patta extracts issued by her at Exs.P.13 to P.14.
20. PW.13 - Harish and PW.14 – Manjunatha by stating that the police had not seized the clothes of the accused in their presence while drawing clothes seizure panchanama as per Ex.P.15 have disappointed the prosecution.
21. PW.15 – Umanath is the Assistant Sub- Inspector of respondent police station, who has stated that as per the order of his superior he was deployed to trace and apprehend the accused and based on the information received by him, he joined by his staff, apprehended the accused and produced him before the Superior along with Ex.P.16.
22. PW.16 – K.V.Anantha Padmanabha, the Police Sub-Inspector of respondent police station has stated that while he was working as Station House Officer of the respondent police station, on 08.01.2013, in the afternoon at 12.00 p.m., PW.1 appeared before him and filed a written complaint as per Ex.P.1 and which he registered in the police station against the accused and prepared a FIR as per Ex.P.17 and handed over further investigation to CW.24.
23. PW.17 – CW.24 - Ramesh, the Circle Inspector of Police, Mudigere Police Station, has given a detailed report of the investigation said to have been conducted by him in this matter and he filing the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences. The denial suggestions made in the cross-examination were not admitted as true by him.
24. PW.18, the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mudigere, in his evidence has stated that based on the requisition of the investigating officer i.e., PW.17, in this matter, he has recorded the statement of PWs.1 and 2 on 09.01.2013, under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and he has also stated that before recording the said statements he has taken all precautionary measures as to what a Magistrate is required to take before recording the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He has identified the statements given by PWs.1 and 2 respectively.
25. The main witness in the case who could have spoken the alleged wrongful restraint and alleged sexual assault allegedly committed against her by any person is PW.1. In the instant case, admittedly, the very alleged victim girl has not supported the case even to a smallest extent. She has clearly and categorically stated in her examination-in-chief itself that though she knows the accused, he has done nothing to her. She unequivocally has stated that accused has not sexually assaulted her, apart from that, she has also disowned of she lodging any complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1 or being present when the alleged scene of occurrence panchanama was drawn or even she producing any clothes said to have been worn by her at the time of alleged incident before the police while they were drawing the clothes seizure panchanama at Ex.P.3. Thus, the very witness upon whom the prosecution had banked all its success has not supported the case of the prosecution even to the smallest extent.
26. The next important witness who could have spoken in favour of the prosecution was none less than the PW.3, who is the mother of the alleged victim. It is quite but natural for any minor girl to reveal the untoward incident before her mother. In such an event, the mother could have necessarily stated the same in supporting the case of the prosecution. However, in the instant case, the conduct of the mother is not on the expected lines of the prosecution. As already observed above, even the said mother in her evidence as PW.3 in unequivocal term has stated that accused has not sexually assaulted her daughter i.e., PW.1. Further, neither PW.1 nor PW.2 have told her about the alleged incident. She also stated that she has not taken PW.1 to the police. However, police themselves have come to the house and obtained signatures of PW.1 on the papers. In this manner, the important witness who is none else the mother of the alleged victim girl has made it clear that the alleged incident has never occurred.
27. The third important witness upon whom the prosecution banked was PW.4 who is admittedly, the elder sister of the alleged victim. She has stated that she was away from the place and PW.1 and PW.3 are her sister and mother respectively. She also followed the same line stating that she does not know anything about the case.
28. In the light of the above, the only hope for the prosecution was PW.2 – Mala who admittedly is the younger sister of PW.1, the alleged victim girl. The said witness though has stated that on the alleged date of incident, the accused closing the mouth of her sister – PW.1 took her away from the place, seeing the same she ran to the house but has not stated anything more as to what was further incident that has taken place. Even the said witness has not whispered anything about the alleged sexual assault said to have been caused upon her elder sister – PW.1 by any body but much less by the accused. She has given her statement to the Magistrate which she has identified as Ex.P.6. Even if her statement made in her examination-in-chief is accepted in its facial value, still it is only goes to show that on the alleged date, she and PW.1 were out of their house, in the coffee plantation where the accused threatened them and took PW.1 away with him. It does not prove beyond the same. However, even before accepting the statement to such an extent also, the worthiness of the existence of the same is to be decided in the light of her statement made in her cross- examination.
The very same witness in her cross-examination has stated that when she gave her statement before the Magistrate at Ex.P.6, the police were also with her. She does not know as to what has been recorded by the Magistrate. She was not questioned by the Magistrate but only asked to put her signature. As such, she has put her signature on Ex.P.6. She categorically stated that she has not told to her mother that the accused threatened by holding a gun and took away PW.1. By making these statements in the cross-examination, she has given a clear go-bye to her statement made in her examination-in-chief. Despite that, the prosecution did not subject the said witness for re-examination. The result would be that she has made it clear that she was not put any question by Magistrate but only told her to put signature on Ex.P.6 that too, in the presence of the police, which she has principally obeyed. By stating that she has not stated anything to her mother, she also made it clear that there was nothing for her to tell to her mother. Thus, merely because she said to have stated in her examination-in-chief that accused had taken her sister away from her, the same statement does not stand on its leg. Since the very same statement was subsequently disowned by the very same witness, as such, evidence of PW.4 the last hope for the prosecution to prove the guilt also proved to be of no help to it in any manner.
29. In the light of the above, none of the material witnesses examined by the prosecution have supported the case of the prosecution. The medical evidence given by PWs.9 and 10 to the effect that when the doctor – PW.9 examined the alleged victim, after her medical and clinical examination, he opined that forcible penetration by some foreign body into the private part cannot be ruled out and by that itself it cannot be said that she was subjected to any sexual assault. It is also for the reason that the doctor no where stated that she was sexually assaulted or that there was any seminal stains of she being subjected to any sexual act or intercourse. He has only stated about the forcible penetration by some foreign body which cannot be ruled out. The said possibility of alleged penetration of vagina through some object was the alleged act of accused having sexual intercourse with the girl is also not proved by the prosecution in any manner. Therefore, the medical evidence of PW.9 also would be of no help to the prosecution to prove the alleged guilt of the accused.
The evidence of PW.10 stands on the same footing as that of other doctor’s opinion at Ex.P.9. The evidence of PW.10 could only go to show that there was nothing to suggest that the accused was not competent to have sexual intercourse. Even if the same is taken as true, still at the best, the only fact that stands proved is that the accused having capacity to have sexual intercourse at the relevant point of time. By that itself, it cannot be equated that he has committed the alleged act against PW.1.
Thus, when the material prosecution witnesses, including the victim girl, have not supported the case of the prosecution and also when the medical evidence would not enure to the benefit of the prosecution since the alleged victim and her mother themselves have not supported the case of the prosecution, the other evidence of peripheral witnesses like PW.11 who has given the date of birth certificate of PW.1, and PW.12, who has issued the patta extracts of the alleged land, will have no weightage on the alleged offences said to have taken place and would not gain any importance. However, the trial Court appears to have erred in two places.
30. In the first place, the trial Court after considering Section 29 of POCSO Act, which speaks about presumption as to certain evidence more particularly, Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act, forgetting that the said presumption is rebuttable, appears to have taken the said presumption as the conclusive proof which led it to give finding that the accused has committed the alleged offences. Section 29 of the POCSO Act, makes it very clear that the said presumption is rebuttable once the contrary is proved. The benefit of said presumption could not be available to the prosecution. In the instant case, in view of the fact that the alleged victim and the alleged eye witnesses and also the material witnesses, including the mother of the alleged victim girl, have been examined as prosecution witnesses and the alleged victim and her mother have totally abandoned the case of the prosecution, there nothing remains to say that the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, crystalised in favour of the prosecution. On the other hand, there is clear proof of rebuttable of the said presumption by examination of the material witnesses. Thus, giving benefit of Section 29 of the POCSO Act in favour of the prosecution, the trial Court appears to have committed a primary error while passing the impugned judgment.
31. The second error committed by the trial Court is in appreciation of the evidentiary value of the statements of PWs.1 and 2 recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which have been marked at Exs.P.5 and P.6 respectively. In the said process, the trial Court has relied upon the judgment of Privy Council in case of Mamand Vs. Emperor reported in AIR (33) 1946 Privy Council, 45, wherein the Hon’ble Privy Council observed as below :
“ (a) Criminal P.C. (1898), S.164 – Statement under S.164 by witness can be used only to discredit his evidence in Court – Court thinking that witness has been won over by defence – His evidence in Court should be entirely ignored.
The statement of a witness made under S.164 can be used only to discredit the evidence given by him in Court, and not for any other purpose. Such a statement cannot be treated as substantive evidence of the facts stated.
Where, in view of a statement made by a witness under S.164, the Court considers that he has been won over by the defence, his evidence in Court must be entire ignored.”
32. It also relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Delhi Vs. Shri Ram Lohia reported in AIR 1960 Supreme Court, 490 and in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kartar Singh reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court, 1305. In both these cases, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., are not evidence but rather corroborative of what they have said in committal Court. It can be used to corroborate or contradict that witness. Thus, even though it is clear that if the person who has alleged to have given statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., further deviates from his early statement given in his evidence in the trial, to what extent his previous statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used at the maximum to contradict the evidence of the said witness given in the trial. However, the trial Court in the instant case appears to have treated Exs.P.5 and P.6 which are the alleged statements of PWs.1 and 2 respectively, as substantive piece of evidence and disbelieving what the very same witnesses have stated during their trial as PWs.1 and 2, given more weightage to Exs.P.5 and P.6 and accepted them as the true facts which has led to pronouncement of impugned judgment.
33. Since in view of the above analysis the said analysis made by the trial Court in appreciating Section 29 of the POCSO Act and Section 164 of Cr.P.C., is found to be erroneous and considering that the prosecution could not get any support from the material witnesses, including alleged victim herself, we are of the opinion that unhesitantly, we have to hold that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the accused deserves to be acquitted of the alleged offences. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The Appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2013 and order on sentence dated 11.09.2013, passed by the learned Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Chikmagalur, in Special Case (IPC & POCSO) No.4/2013, are set aside. The accused – Prasanna, S/o. Shivanna, resident of Vikram Gowda’s Sharavathi Estate, Mudasasi Village, Mudigere Taluk, Chickmagalur District – 567 121, is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The fine amount paid by the accused if any, be refunded to him in accordance with law.
Since the accused is in judicial custody, the Registry is directed to communicate the operative portion of this judgment to the concerned Jail authorities forthwith.
The accused be released forthwith, in case if he is not required to be continued in judicial custody in any other case.
The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment along with Lower Court Records to the trial Court without delay.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nvj