Bombay High Court
Fazal Mehmud Jilani Dafedar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 November, 2020
Author: N.J.Jamadar
Bench: Sadhana S. Jadhav, N.J. Jamadar
apeal-845-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.845 OF 2017
Fazal Mehmud Jilani Dafedar
R/o. Devashish Society, B wing,
Third Floor, R.No. 303 and 304,
Amrut Nagar, Ghatkopar (w), Mumbai. ...Appellant
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Ms. Sayed Shabana M. Ali, for the Appellant
Ms. P.P. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State.
CORAM : SMT SADHANA S. JADHAV &
N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 29th OCTOBER, 2020
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 26th NOVEMBER, 2020
------------------------
JUDGMENT (Per N.J.Jamadar, J.)
. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 11th August, 2017 in (Pocso) Case No. 519 of 2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay whereby and whereunder the appellant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under sections 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Pocso Act) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fne of Rs. 2,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for fve years and fne of Rs. Vishal Parekar 1/25
apeal-845-2017.doc 1,000/- respectively, with default stipulation. In view of section 42 of the Pocso Act no separate sentence was imposed upon the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal, 1860 (the Penal Code) though the accused was found guilty thereof as well.
2. The background facts necessary for the determination of this appeal can be stated, in brief, as under:
a] The victim 'M' is a native of Mysore. The victim came to stay with Mr. Ayaaz Dafedar, who was residing along with his family consisting of wife, children Arfan, Ali and Wali, brother Faizal, the accused, and mother at R.No. 303 and 304, Devashish Society, B wing, Amrut Nagar, Ghatkopar (w). The wife of Mr. Ayyaz is in relation of the victim from her maternal side.
b] On 23rd October, 2014 Ayyaz Dafedar and the rest of the family members had gone for a trip to Gujrat; except Fazal, the accused. Thus the victim and the accused stayed back in the house of Ayaaz for four days. Taking undue advantage of the situation, the accused forced himself upon the victim. The Vishal Parekar 2/25 apeal-845-2017.doc accused perpetrated penetrative sexual assault on the victim. The accused also inserted fnger in the private part of the victim. The later was thus sexually exploited on 3-4 occasions. The accused threatened the victim of dire consequences in the event she disclosed the incident to anybody. The victim got scared.
c] On 26th October, 2014 while the accused was taking bath, the victim ran out of the house and apprised the said harassment to the girl who was playing in the society campus. The victim was brought to the house of Sonal Suhas Ghate, the frst informant. The victim narrated the exploitation she was subjected to, by the accused. Police were apprised. On 27 th October, 2014 the informant Sonal Ghate lodged frst information report.
d] Crime was registered at C.R.No.422 of 2014 for the offences punishable under sections 376(2)(i), 342, 504, 506(ii) of the Penal Code and section 4, 8 and 10 of the Pocso Act. The victim was sent for medical examination. The accused came to be arrested. The accused was also subjected to medical examination. The investigating offcer visited the scene of occurrence and drew panchanama. The clothes of the victim Vishal Parekar 3/25 apeal-845-2017.doc and the bedsheet were also seized under seizure panchanama. The investigating offcer interrogated the witnesses and recorded their statements. The statement of the victim was also recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code). After obtaining the necessary medical and C.A. reports, and fnding the complicity of the accused, charge sheet was lodged against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 376(2)(i), 342, 504, 506(ii) of the Penal Code and section 4, 8 and 10 of the Pocso Act.
e] The learned Special Judge framed charge against the accused for the offences punishable under section 10 and 6 of the Pocso Act and section 342, 506(ii) and 376(2) of the Penal Code. The accused abjured the guilt and claimed for trial.
3. At the trial, in order to substantiate the indictment against the accused, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. The material witnesses are the victim 'M' (P.W.1), Sonal Ghate (P.W.2), the frst informant, Rajashree Suvarna (P.W.3); another resident of Devashish building, Dr. Meena Savjani (P.W.5), the medical offcer, Shobha Aagashe (P.W.7), the social Vishal Parekar 4/25 apeal-845-2017.doc worker, and Maya Patil (P.W.8) and Annasaheb Sutar (P.W.9) who furnished the details of investigation. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of the Code. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence which consisted of total denial and false implication at the behest of Ms. Komal Hake, who was removed from employment by Ayyaz Dafedar.
4. After appraisal of the evidence and material on record, the learned Special Judge was persuaded to hold that the testimony of the victim inspired confdence. The oral evidence of Sonal Ghate (P.W.2) and Rajashree Suvarna (P.W.3), and the medical evidence lent necessary corroboration. Thus, the learned Special Judge entered the fnding of guilt against the accused for the offences punishable under section 6 and 10 of the Posco Act and section 376(2) of the Penal Code and imposed the sentence as indicated above. The learned Special Judge, however, held that the prosecution did not succeed in establishing the charge for the offences punishable under section 342 and 506 of the Penal Code.
Vishal Parekar 5/25
apeal-845-2017.doc
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfed with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant/ accused is in appeal.
6. We have heard Sayed Shabana M. Ali, the learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. P.P. Shinde, learned A.P.P for the State at a considerable length. We have also perused the evidence and material on record.
7. Assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment, Ms. Sayed urged that the learned Special Judge committed a grave error in returning the fnding of guilt sans legal evidence. The edifce of this submission was built on the premise that the medical evidence totally ruled out the possibility of alleged sexual exploitation as no injury was found on the person of the victim. The medical evidence, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, in this case, completely negatives the victim's claim of having been sexually exploited for 3-4 days immediately preceding the day of her medical examination. The learned Special Judge, in the circumstances of the case, ought not to have placed implicit reliance on the Vishal Parekar 6/25 apeal-845-2017.doc testimony of the victim who was barely 11 years old at the time of alleged occurrence. It was further submitted that the evidence of Sonal Ghate (P.W.2) and Rajashree Suvarna (P.W.3) is bereft of corroborative value. Furthermore, it was elicited in the cross examination of Ms.Sonal Ghate (P.W.1) that her friend Komal Hake was inimically disposed towards Ayyaz Dafedar, the brother of the accused. This crucial aspect was not properly appreciated by the learned Special Judge. Thus, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be set aside, urged Ms. Sayed.
8. In contrast, Ms. Shinde, learned A.P.P. submitted that the learned Special Judge was wholly justifed in returning a fnding of guilt against the appellant. The testimony of the victim (P.W.1) fnds requisite support in the evidence of Sonal Ghate (P.W.2), Rajashree Suvarna (P.W.3) and Shobha Aagashe (P.W.7). Moreover, there is contemporaneous material in the nature of the statement of the victim (Exhibit 10), recorded under section 164 of the Code, and the history narrated by the victim to the medical offcer. The submission based on absence of injuries on the person of the victim, sought to be canvassed Vishal Parekar 7/25 apeal-845-2017.doc on behalf of the accused, is not well founded, urged Ms. Shinde. The medical offcer has specifcally deposed that there was attempted penovaginal penetration and injuries may or may not occur in such a case.
9. Before adverting to deal with the aforesaid rival submissions, we deem it appropriate to note few uncontroverted facts.
10. Indisputably, the victim was about 11 years old at the time of the alleged occurrence. Victim had come to reside with the brother of the accused, Ayyaz Dafedar, whose wife was a distant relative of the victim. There is evidence to indicate that one of the reasons for staying at Mumbai was the fact that the victim had to take treatment for certain ailments. The precise nature of the ailment is, however, a matter in contest. There is not much controversy over the fact that rest of the family members of Ayyaz Dafedar, except the accused and the victim, had gone on a trip to Gujrat on 23 rd October, 2014. During their absence, the victim and the accused were the only inhabitants in the said house. The prosecution alleged that taking undue Vishal Parekar 8/25 apeal-845-2017.doc advantage of the said situation, the accused sexually exploited the victim.
11. The victim 'M' (P.W.1) unfurled the manner in which she was allegedly defowered by the accused. After apprising the Court about the circumstances in which she came to reside in the house of the brother of the accused and found herself lodged with the accused since 23rd October, 2014, the victim 'M' (P.W.1) informed the Court that, during those four days, while she and the accused were at home, the accused undressed himself and asked her to undress as well. The accused touched her breasts. The accused had peno-vaginal penetration. Accused also inserted his fnger in her private part. She was thus exploited on 3-4 occasions in a room of the said house. She further affrmed that the accused took her in a car and pressed her breasts and fngered as well. The victim 'M' (P.W.1) asserted that accused had threatened her that if she disclosed the said incident to anybody he would arrange for four persons, who would exploit her in similar fashion and, thereafter, kill her.
Vishal Parekar 9/25
apeal-845-2017.doc
12. The victim 'M' (P.W.1) claimed that on a day when the accused had been to bathroom, she rescued herself and disclosed the exploitation at the hands of the accused to one Didi residing in the said building. She claimed to have stayed overnight in the house of the said Didi, (Sonal Ghate (P.W.2)) who took assistance of her friend and reported the matter to police. Victim 'M' (P.W.1) informed the Court that her statement was recorded under Sec.164 of the Code (Exh-10).
13. Sonal Ghate (P.W.2), the frst informant, professed to lend support to the version of the victim. Sonal Ghate (P.W.2) endevoured to impress upon the Court that on the evening of 26th October, 2014 Nakshatra Suvarna, the daughter of her maternal aunt, brought the victim to her home. The victim was scared and crying. On being inquired, the victim narrated the incidents which transpired since 23rd October, 2014, the day rest of the family members went to Gujrat. According to Sonal Ghate (P.W.2) the victim had informed her that the accused was forcing himself upon the victim. The accused undressed himself, made her to undress, touched her breasts and inserted his fnger in her private part. Sonal Ghate (P.W.2) further Vishal Parekar 10/25 apeal-845-2017.doc affrmed that the victim had also apprised her about the exploitation by the accused in the car and the threats administered by the accused, in the event victim disclosed the incident to anybody.
14. It is in the evidence of Sonal Ghate (P.W.2) that she related the incident to her friends and neighbours. In a state of bewilderment, she kept the victim in her home. On the next day police arrived upon being informed by one of the neighbours. Sonal Ghate (P.W.2) claimed to have accompanied the victim to police station and therefrom to the hospital for medical examination. Thereafter, she lodged the frst information report (Exhibit 14A).
15. Rajashree Suvarna (P.W.3), the mother of Nakshatra, also seeks to lend corroboration to the version of the victim. Rajashree Suvarna (P.W.3) was in unison with Sonal Ghate (P.W.2) on the point that the victim was scared and, upon being inquired, narrated the sexual exploitation at the hands of the accused.
Vishal Parekar 11/25
apeal-845-2017.doc
16. Nothing material could be elicited in the cross examination of either Sonal Ghate (P.W.2) or Rajashree Suvarna (P.W.3), except the fact that one Komal Hake was residing in the nearby locality and the latter was working with Ayyaz Dafedar, the brother of the accused prior to the occurrence. Rajashree Suvarna (P.W.3) conceded that said Komal Hake was her friend and she was removed from the employment by Ayyaz Dafedar on account of an issue over salary. Both Sonal Ghate (P.W.2) and Rajashree Suvarna (P.W.3), however, did not cave in to the suggestion that the accused came to be falsely implicated at the instance of Komal Hake, so as to avenge latter's removal from the employment.
17. It would be contextually relevant to note that the victim 'M' (P.W.1) withstood an incisive and searching cross examination. A concerted effort was made to draw home the point that the victim was tutored. An endevour was made to demonstrate that at the instance of the frst informant Sonal Ghate (P.W.2) and the caretackers of the Institutional Center, where the victim was lodged, the victim testifed to suit the prosecution. However, the victim stoutly denied the Vishal Parekar 12/25 apeal-845-2017.doc suggestions and asserted with courage and conviction that she deposed to the events which transpired.
18. The challenge to the testimony of the victim 'M' (P.W.1) on the count that, she being a child witness, the possibility of tutoring can not be ruled out and thus there was an imperative necessity of corroboration is required to be appreciated in the light of the attendant circumstances.
19. As indicated above, the victim had come to reside with the family of the accused, three months ago. At the time of occurrence, the victim and the accused were the only inhabitants of the house. On the evening of 26 th October, 2020 the victim was initially found in a scared state by the children who were playing in the campus of the society. Nakshatra, the daughter of Rajashree Suvarna (P.W.3), took the victim to the house of the frst informant. The victim narrated the exploitation at the hands of the accused to both Sonal Ghate (P.W.2) and Rajashree Suvarna (P.W.3). The conduct on the part of Sonal Ghate (P.W.2), the frst informant, to keep the victim in her home till the matter was reported to police, in the Vishal Parekar 13/25 apeal-845-2017.doc circumstances of the case, appears natural and clearly manifests sensitivity to the plight of a child victim. What is of critical signifcance is the fact that the victim consistently narrated exploitation at the hands of the accused before Sonal Ghate (P.W.2), Rajashree Suvarna (P.W.3), the medical offcer, the learned Magistrate, when her statement was recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Court. In the totality of the circumstances, the possibility of tutoring is frmly ruled out. This inference is inescapable if the multiple explanations which the accused endeavored to offer for his alleged false implication are considered.
20. We have noticed that the main plank of the defence was that at the instance of Komal Hake, who was in the employment of Ayyaz Dafedar, the accused came to be prosecuted. It was next suggested that the victim was fed up with the accused taking her to spiritual healers ( Moulanas) and shrines (Dargas) as it was believed that the victim was under the control of evil spirit and thus the victim lodged the report. Thirdly, it was contended that the caretakers of the orphanage, where the victim was lodged, had threatened that Vishal Parekar 14/25 apeal-845-2017.doc they would not allow the victim to go to her parents unless she deposed against the accused.
21. It does not stand to reason that the victim 'M' (P.W.1), a 11 year old girl, would play into the hands of an utter stranger Komal Hake, a former employee of Ayyaz Dafedar. Nor it appeals to human credulity that, within a short span of couple of months, the victim would develop such an affnity with the strangers, including the frst informant Sonal Ghate (P.W.2), as to turn against the family which had patronized her. Even if the defence is taken at par, we can not loose sight of the fact that Komal Hake had a grudge against Ayyaz Dafedar, her former employer, and thus the obvious target to wreck vengeance would have been Ayyaz Dafedar. Viewed from any perceptive the defence that the accused came to be falsely implicated at the instance of Komal Hake appears too shallow.
22. Conversely, the attendant circumstances and contemporaneous conduct of the accused militate against the defence version. An 11 year old girl, uprooted from her family and environment, was in the custody of the accused. The rest of Vishal Parekar 15/25 apeal-845-2017.doc the family members were out of the town. The situation was tailor-made for an evil desired predator. It is not the case that when the victim rescued herself and stayed overnight, in the house of the frst informant, the accused made any effort to ascertain the whereabouts of the victim. Admittedly, the victim was undergoing some treatment. If such an 11 year old girl leaves the house and does not return for a while, it was expected of the person, who happened to be her custodian, to be concerned about her safety and make an effort to trace her.
23. There is another factor which is of immense salience. The forensic medical examination report of accused (Exhibit 17) was admitted in evidence on behalf of the accused. It reveals that the accused had stated before the medical offcer that, on the day of incident, the victim came near him and started rubbing his genitals. The latter remonstrated and slapped the victim. In the light of such counter version, the inaction on the part of the accused, when the victim left the home on the evening of 26th October, 2014 and did not return even on the next morning, is inexplicable and betrays complicity. Vishal Parekar 16/25
apeal-845-2017.doc
24. The situation which thus obtains is that the evidence of the victim (P.W.1), on its own, allures confdence. Furthermore, the testimony of Sonal Ghate (P.W.2) and Rajashree Suvarna (P.W.3) renders ample support. On the touchstone of the broad probabilities, in the peculiar fact-situation, the aforesaid attendant circumstances also lend necessary support to the claim of the victim.
25. It is well settled that the victim of a sexual assault is not an accomplice. Nor is it an immutable rule of law that the testimony of a survivor cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. A victim stands on higher pedestal than an injured witness. The injury suffered by the victim is physical, psychological and emotional. In a given case, if the Court fnds it diffcult to accept the version of the prosecutrix, on its own, the Court would be justifed in searching for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which lends assurance to her testimony. Such assurance, short of corroboration, is suffcient.
26. A useful reference in this context, can be made to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd Imran Vishal Parekar 17/25 apeal-845-2017.doc Khan vs. State Government (NCT of Delhi) 1 wherein the legal position was postulated as under:
22. It is a trite law that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust. The prosecutrix stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness as she suffers from emotional injury. Therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called `Evidence Act'), nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 of Evidence Act and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfed that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.
23. The court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations. Rape is not merely a physical assault, rather it often distracts the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non-examination even of other witnesses may 1 (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 192.
Vishal Parekar 18/25
apeal-845-2017.doc not be a serious infrmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence. (Vide: State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, AIR 1990 SC 658; State of U.P. v. Pappu @Yunus & Anr. AIR 2005 SC 1248; and Vijay @ Chinee v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191).
24. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that statement of prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.
(emphasis supplied)
27. This propels us to the thrust of the submission on behalf of the accused that the medical evidence belies the alleged sexual exploitation at the hands of the accused. Inviting the attention of the Court to the evidence of Dr. Meena Savjani (P.W.5), the head of Gynecological Department and sexual assault cases, Rajawadi Hospital, where the victim was medically examined, it was vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the accused that the medico-legal examination report (Exhibit 22) records in black and white that there were no signs suggestive of use of force and vaginal/anal intercourse. Laying emphasis on the observations recorded post medico-legal examination of genital parts and other orifces that there was no damage to external genitalia, especially hymen, it was urged with tenacity that the Vishal Parekar 19/25 apeal-845-2017.doc case of alleged penetration is totally falsifed. In the circumstances, the testimony of the victim 'M' (P.W. 1) is unworthy of credence, urged Ms. Sayed, the learned counsel for the accused.
28. Indeed, the medical examination report (Exhibit 22) records that there were no signs suggestive of use of force and vaginal/anal intercourse, nor any external injuries were noticed on the person of the victim. Dr. Meena Savjani (P.W.5), however, asserted that in cases where the victim does not offer resistance, there may not be any injury. She further asserted that in the case at hand penetration may not have been completed. During the course of cross examination, Dr. Meena Savjani (P.W.5) further clarifed that the injury may or may not occur in the event a 11 year child is subjected to fngering. Dr. Meena Savjani (P.W.5) replied in the affrmative, to a pointed question, that it was a case of attempted sexual assault. She further affrmed that there is no test to detect the instance of fngering.
29. In addition the medical evidence, Ms. Sayed Ali banked Vishal Parekar 20/25 apeal-845-2017.doc upon the forensic laboratory reports which reveal that no semen was detected on vulval swab, vaginal swab and vaginal smear. Neither blood nor semen was detected on any of the clothes of the victim, accused, and bed-sheet.
30. In the backdrop of the aforesaid nature of medical evidence, the learned Special Judge was persuaded to hold that there was no material to show that the victim was subjected to penovaginal intercourse by the accused. However, there was evidence to indicate that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault by way of digital penetration and sexual assault by touching and pressing breasts of the victim.
31. In our view, the aforesaid approach of the learned Special Judge is justifable. The evidence can not be appreciated bereft of the circumstances and context. The hapless and unsuspecting victim found herself at the mercy of the accused, with nobody else in the house. The claim of the victim that the accused threatened her with dire consequences and subjected her to sexual exploitation thus can not be discarded. The omission, elicited in the cross examination of the victim, to the Vishal Parekar 21/25 apeal-845-2017.doc effect that she did not state before the police that the accused had threatened her that he would arrange for four persons, who would exploit her in identical fashion and, thereafter, kill her, does not detract materialy from her testimony if viewed through the prism of the circumstances.
32. The situation, age and condition of helplessness would have forced the victim to resign to her fate. There is no material to indicate, nor an endevour was made to elicit in the cross examination of the victim 'M' (P.W.1), that the latter offered resistance. In the absence of forcible resistance, the absence of injury on the person of the victim is not suffcient to discredit her evidence.
33. For the foregoing reasons, we do not fnd any infrmity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction for the offences punishable under sections 6 and 10 of the Pocso Act and section 376 of the Penal Code.
34. Ms. Sayed Ali, the learned counsel for the appellant also urged that the sentence of imprisonment for life errs on the Vishal Parekar 22/25 apeal-845-2017.doc side of severity, in the backdrop of the fnding that there was no penovaginal penetration. Having regard to the age of the accused, his situation in life and the circumstances of the case, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 6 of the Pocso Act deserves to be interfered with. The learned counsel for the appellant thus prayed for leniency.
35. In opposition to this, Ms. Shidne, learned A.P.P. stoutly submitted that the accused does not deserve any leniency. The accused has betrayed the trust and confdence reposed in him not only by the victim but by his brother and sister-in-law, who had left the victim with the accused. Accused had preyed a child of 11 years and left a permanent scar on the mind of the victim.
36. There can be no duality of opinion that the sexual assault cases are required to be dealt with sternly and the offenders deserve no leniency. The situation is exacerbated where the protector turns predator. However, the principle of just desert can not be lost sight of. The governing principle in the matter of Vishal Parekar 23/25 apeal-845-2017.doc punishment is its proportionality to the gravity of the offence.
37. In the case at hand, the fnding of the learned Special Judge that there was no evidence of penovaginal penetration is borne out by the evidence and material on record. The evidence undoubtedly justifes the fnding of penetrative sexual assault within the meaning of clause (b) of section 3 of the Pocso Act, 2012. The act also falls within the dragnet of clause
(b) of section 375 of the Penal Code which defnes the offence of rape, as substituted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.
38. Having regard to the entire gamut of the circumstances, in our view, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, which is the minimum prescribed by section 6 of the Pocso Act, would meet the ends of justice. We are, thus, inclined to modify the sentence and allow the appeal to the aforesaid extent. Hence, the following order:
ORDER 1] The Appeal stands partly allowed.
2] The impugned judgment of conviction for the offences Vishal Parekar 24/25 apeal-845-2017.doc punishable under section 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and section 376(2) of the Penal Code stands confrmed.
3] The sentence for the offence punishable under section 6 of the Pocso Act, 2012 stands modifed as under:
(a) The impugned sentence for the offence punishable under section 6 of the Pocso Act, 2012 stands set aside.
(b) Instead, the appellant/accused Fazal Mehmud Jilani Dafedar is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and pay fne of Rs. 2,000/- and, in default of payment of fne, the accused shall suffer further simple imprisonment for three months.
4] Rest of the order stands confrmed.
(N.J.JAMADAR, J.) (SMT SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)
Digitally
signed by
V. S.
V. S. Parekar
Parekar Date:
2020.11.26
16:28:14
+0530
Vishal Parekar 25/25