Delhi District Court
State vs . Manish on 7 June, 2014
State Vs. Manish
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 ( CENTRAL): DELHI
SC No. 60/2013
ID No. 02401R0101982013
FIR No. : 09/13
Police Station : Gulabi Bagh
Under Section : 354/506/509 IPC
& 8/12 of POCSO Act
State
Versus
Manish
S/o Ram Kumar
R/o Jhuggi No. 101, Subzi Mandi,
Ganda Nala, Delhi
.............Accused
Date of Institution : 21.03.2013
Date of judgment reserved on : 26.05.2014
Date of judgment pronounced on : 05.06.2014
Present: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state
Sh. A.S. Rajput, Advocate, counsel for the accused
J U D G M E N T :-
1. Briefly stated facts of prosecution case are that on January 15, 2013 at about 11.50 AM an intimation was received from police control SC No. 60/13 1 of 21 State Vs. Manish room that one boy was harassing a girl in government school at Partap Nagar. Said information was recorded vide DD No. 18A (Ex.PW9/A) and was assigned to HC Pardeep and intimation was also sent to SI Vijay.
(i) On reaching the place of occurrence, SI Vijay Kumar met with complainant (since complainant is the victim of sexual assault, her identity is withheld and hereinafter she is referred to as victim or complainant).
Victim got recorded her statement Ex. PW2/A wherein she alleged that she studies in XIth B and on January 15, 2013 at about 11.10 AM she was present in her class room i.e. room no. 54 and due to recess, no teacher was available in the class. It was alleged that while she was sitting in the desk, accused Manish who was earlier studying in the said school, came and caught hold her by arm with sexual intent and when she raised protest, accused twisted her arm and asked her whether she would love him or not and stated otherwise he would kill her. It was alleged that after hearing sound of accused, her classmates Deepika and Vijay Kumar came there to apprehend the accused but accused escaped from the class room. On her statement, an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 354/506/509 IPC and under Section 8/12 of of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act in short) was got registered.
(ii) During investigation, documents relating to the age of victim and accused were collected. As per school record, date of birth of victim is revealed as November 14, 1996, thus she was found minor at the time of alleged incident whereas date of birth of accused was revealed as July 6, 1994, thus he was found major at the time of incident. During investigation, statement of victim was got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She was also got medically examined. Accused was arrested.
SC No. 60/13 2 of 21
State Vs. Manish
2. After completing investigation, challan was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 354/506/509 IPC and under Section 8/12 of POCSO Act.
3. After complying with the section 207 Cr.P.C, vide order dated April 11, 2013, a charge for the offence punishable under Section 354/506/509 IPC and under Section 8/12 of POCSO Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty claimed trail.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined following eleven witnesses:-
PW1 Mother of victim (In order to conceal the identity of victim, her identity is also withheld) PW2 victim herself PW3 Ms. Deepika, classmate of victim PW4 Ms. Durga, classmate of victim PW5 Mr. Mahavir Singh, Principal of School PW6 Mr. Parmod Kumar, Vice Principal of school PW7 Smt. Mamta Diwan, teacher of school PW8 Mr. Dharmender Singh, PTI teacher PW9 HC Ghandar Parsad, duty officer PW10 Const. Ashwani, joined investigation with IO PW11 SI Vijay Kumar, investigation officer
5. On culmination of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he admitted that PW2 was studying in the said school and earlier he was also studying in the said SC No. 60/13 3 of 21 State Vs. Manish school and date of birth of victim is November 14, 1996. He also admitted that he was taken to hospital for medical examination. Except that he denied each and every other incriminating evidence led by prosecution and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that when he was admitted on bail, victim came to meet his sister. However, he refused to lead any evidence in his defence.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the accused vehemently contended that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of witnesses examined by prosecution as they are interested witnesses. It was further contended that as per prosecution version, PW4 had witnessed the incident whereas as per Ex.PW5/A, she was absent on the day of incident, this indicates that accused have been framed in this case. It was further contended that PW2 and PW3 categorically deposed that accused was apprehended by their teacher PW8 Dharmender Singh but he did not support their version by deposing that he could not apprehend the accused. It was thus, contended that this indicates that things had not happened in the manner in which same are presented before the Court. It was further contended that the FIR is ante-time as no copy of FIR was supplied to the complainant. It was further contended that the investigating officer has not adhered to the provisions of POCSO Act at the time of investigating the matter as victim was interrogated by male police official. It was further contended that no public witness was asked to join the proceeding when accused was allegedly arrested from his house. It was further contended that the victim was in love with the accused since long and she used to talk with the accused frequently and there is no sexual intent on the part of accused. It was further contended that mere beating a female child does not amount sexual assault or sexual harassment.
SC No. 60/13 4 of 21
State Vs. Manish
7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor refuted the said contentions by arguing sagaciously that PW2 who is the victim of crime had categorically deposed against the accused and her testimony is duly corroborated by PW3, PW4 and PW7. It was further submitted that PW7 is an independent witness, thus there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of prosecution witnesses. It was further contended that accused was not studying in the school at the time of incident despite that he entered the class-room and misbehaved with PW2 and twisted her arm and forced her to love with him and threatened otherwise he would kill her. It was argued that mere fact that in past accused and victim were friends and victim had joint photo-sessions with the accused is not sufficient to prove the innocence of the accused. It was further contended that under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, onus is upon the accused to establish that he had not committed the offence but during trial, accused failed to produce any evidence in his defence. It was further argued that the lapses pointed out by learned defence counsel are insignificant, hence same are not fatal to the prosecution case in any manner.
8. I have heard rival submissions made by counsel for both the parties, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
9. Firstly, I shall deal with the contentions relating to the violation of provisions of POCSO Act during investigation. Under Section 24 of the POCSO Act, certain conditions have been imposed upon the police, which police is required to adhere to at the time of recording the statement of a child. Section 24 reads as under:
SC No. 60/13 5 of 21
State Vs. Manish
24. Recording of statement of a child.-
(1) The statement of the child shall be recorded at the residence of the child or at a place where he usually resides or at the place of his choice and as far as practicable by a woman police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector.
(2) The police officer while recording the statement of the child shall not be in uniform.
(3) The police officer making the investigation, shall, while examining the child, ensure that at no point of time the child come in the contact in any way with the accused.
(4) No child shall be detained in the police station in the night for any reason.
(5) The police officer shall ensure that the identity of the child is protected from the public media, unless otherwise directed by the Special Court in the interest of the child.
(emphasis supplied)
10. In the instant case, statement of victim was recorded by SI Vijay Kumar. As per rukka Ex. PW4/A, the statement of victim was recorded in the school. PW11 in his cross-examination admitted that he knew that under the POCSO Act, statement of child is to be recorded by a woman police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector but swiftly added that since no lady Sub-Inspector was available in the police station, SHO asked him to record the statement of victim. He showed his ignorance that the statement of child can be recorded later on under the POCSO Act and there is no requirement to record the statement of victim immediately. He also admitted that there is no endorsement either of any lady constable or school teacher to the effect that statement of child was recorded in their SC No. 60/13 6 of 21 State Vs. Manish presence. Indisputably, under Section 24(1) of POCSO Act, statement of child is to be recorded by a woman police officer not below the rank of Sub- Inspector. Since the statement of child was recorded by male police officer, PW11 had violated the provisions of Section 24(1) of POCSO Act. The reason furnished by PW11 that since no female SI was available in the police station, SHO asked him to record the statement of victim is not convincing because this fact is not mentioned in the rukka. If SHO had given any such direction, it was the duty of PW11 to mention the same in his endorsement but he failed to do so. Further if no female SI was present in the police station, SHO should have made a requisition from another police station, but no such effort was made. Needless to say that it was the duty of SHO and investigating officer to make all sincere effort to comply with the provisions in its letter and spirit. But PW11 failed to adhere to the same. No doubt this is a lapse on the part of investigating officer but defence counsel failed to convince the Court how the said lapse is fatal to the prosecution case or how the said lapse caused prejudice to the accused. In the absence of any such cogent evidence, I am of the view said lapse is not fatal to the prosecution case.
11. Now coming to the next contention as to whether PW4 Durga was absent from the school on January 15, 2013 or not.
12. Learned defence counsel relied upon the attendance register Ex. PW5/A and submitted that in the Attendance register, Durga has been shown absent on January 15, 2013. On the basis of said piece of evidence, learned counsel contended that since PW4 Durga was absent in the school, she could not witness the incident.
SC No. 60/13 7 of 21
State Vs. Manish
13. Perusal of the attendance register Ex. PW5/A reveals that there is some overwriting at the attendance of PW4 Durga on January 15, 2013 but she has been shown present on January 15, 2013 in the attendance register and there is initial on the overwriting. The attendance register was proved by PW5 but no effort was made to seek any clarification from the said witness about the said overwriting. Similarly, no question was put to PW4 Durga that she was absent on January 15, 2013. In other words, no opportunity was given to prosecution witnesses to clarify that PW4 Durga was not absent in the school. In these peculiar circumstances, I am of the opinion that the said overwriting is not sufficient to hold that PW4 Durga was not present in the class-room at the time of alleged incident.
14. Now coming to the erstwhile relationship between accused and victim.
15. Accused has set up a case that victim was his friend since long and she used to have joint photograph with the accused in the photo studio and both used to talk and touch to each other. In this regard, the testimony of PW1 & PW2 are relevant.
16. PW1 in her cross-examination admitted that she knew the accused for the last several years and also admitted that when her daughter (PW2) was in 9 th standard, accused was studying in her school and further admitted that in 2009 she had lodged a complaint at police station Gulabi Bagh that his daughter was missing from her house and also admitted that police had recovered her daughter and accused after three days and during said three days her daughter remained with the accused SC No. 60/13 8 of 21 State Vs. Manish and this fact is also admitted by PW2. PW2 further admitted that she had joint photograph with the accused and same are Ex. PW2/C and PW2/D. Bare perusal of the photographs reveals that there was some intimacy between them. But these photographs do not establish that the said intimacy was in the year 2013. No doubt, it is proved on record that in 2009 victim and accused together went to Barelli and victim stayed there with the accused and victim had also joint photograph with the accused in photo- studio. But the same does not prove that the said intimacy continued and was in existence in the year 2013 too.
17. Assuming for the sake of arguments that there was any friendship or intimacy between accused and victim in 2013. Even then it does not permit the accused to enter the class room of victim and to misbehave or sexually assault the victim. Though suggestion was given to PW2 that victim used to meet the accused after bunking classes but same was denied by the victim and she categorically deposed that she never met the accused after bunking classes. Though she deposed that accused used to come school to meet her, but she did not meet him in the school and clarified that her classmates used to tell her that accused came to school to meet her. PW2 also categorically denied the suggestions that she used to talk with the accused on phone regularly. During trial, witness was not got confronted with any call detail to show that victim used to make calls to the accused.
18. Now coming to the contentions relating to the incident.
19. PW2 in her examination-in-chief categorically deposed that on January 15, 2013, she was present in her class room i.e. room No. 54 SC No. 60/13 9 of 21 State Vs. Manish and since it was recess and she was taking her lunch. At that time, accused Manish came to her class and caught hold by her hair and started beating her. He also dragged the victim outside the class and then beaten her. Accused had also asked her whether she would talk with him or not or whether she would love him or not and when victim told the accused that she did not love him, accused threatened her that he would kill her and her family members, if she refused to talk him or if she did not love him. She further deposed that the said incident was also witnessed by her friends Vijay and Deepika. Her classmates also tried to get rid of her from the accused. Though a suggestion was put to the victim that accused did not visit school on January 15, 2013 and did nothing but the said suggestion was categorically denied by the victim. The testimony of PW2 is corroborated by PW3 and PW4 also. PW3 deposed that on January 15, 2013 at about 11.10 AM, they were sitting on the desk in the class after taking lunch. All of sudden, accused, who was wearing school uniform, came there and caught hold the victim PW2 and dragged her and in that process victim had sustained injury in her thigh. Accused took her in the corner of class room and slapped the victim. At that time, victim was crying and trying to get rid of herself and also requested her classmates to save herself but they became scared. She further deposed that accused also started abusing and stated whosoever would come, he would beat him. She further deposed that Durga (PW4) is the class monitor and she went to call teacher and further testified that accused dragged the victim in the corridor by catching hold her arm. PW4 Durga also corroborated the testimony of PW2 and PW3 and deposed that she went to staff room and called Mamta Madam (school teacher) and while they were coming back, accused met them at the second floor and at that time, he was catching hold the victim by arm. She further deposed that when Mamta Madam rescued the victim SC No. 60/13 10 of 21 State Vs. Manish (PW2) from the accused, accused told Mamta Madam not to intervene as he had no dispute with her and stated that this matter was between him and victim. She further deposed that as soon as Mamta Madam rescued the victim, accused fled away from the spot. PW7 corroborated the testimony of PW4 by deposing that PW4 came to staff room and told her that Manish was beating to PW2 in the class. Accordingly, she rushed towards the class room and on the way accused Manish met along with the victim in the corridor and at that time accused was dragging the victim by arm while victim was not willing to go with him. Accused had also threatened the victim that he would see her, he would not leave her if she did not talk with him or love him. Accordingly, she tried to pacify the accused but accused told her not to intervene as it was matter between him and victim but in the meantime she got rid of victim from the accused and took the victim in her shelter. Though the witnesses were cross-examined by learned defence counsel but during their cross-examination nothing could be extracted, which may cause any dent in their deposition. Thus, from the testimony of above witnesses, it is proved beyond doubt that on January 15, 2013, accused entered the class room of victim in school uniform and thereafter he caught hold the victim; misbehaved with her; slapped her; dragged her forcibly; and also asked her whether she would talk with him or not or whether she would love with him or not and also threatened if she would not do so, he would kill her and her family member.
20. Now question arises as to whether the above act of accused amounts sexual assault as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act?
21. Section 7 defines Sexual Assault as under:
SC No. 60/13 11 of 21
State Vs. Manish
7. Sexual Assault - Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.
(emphasis supplied)
22. From the above discussion, it becomes clear that accused had touched the victim by catching hold her arm; dragging by hair. From the testimony of witnesses, it also becomes clear that accused forced the victim to talk him or to love him. This shows that accused had some sexual intent towards the victim while he caught hold the victim by arm and hair and dragged her. Under Section 30 of the POCSO Act, presumption qua culpable mental state on the part of the accused lies in favour of prosecution and onus is upon the accused to prove that he had no such mental state. Section 30 is reproduced as under:
30. Presumption of culpable mental state - (1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires as culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as on offence in that prosecution.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.
(emphasis supplied)
23. Since, prosecution has established beyond doubt that SC No. 60/13 12 of 21 State Vs. Manish accused had touched the victim and while did so he asked the victim whether she would love him or whether she would talk him, thus, in terms of Section 30 of the Act, onus is shifted upon the accused to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he had no such culpable mental state at that time. But during trial, accused failed to adduce any evidence in this regard. In these circumstances, prosecution has succeeded to establish that accused had sexual intent when he misbehaved in the above manner with the victim.
24. Under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, presumption also lies in favour of prosecution that accused had committed such offence. As already discussed that prosecution has succeeded to establish that accused misbehaved with the victim by catching hold by arm; hair; dragging and slapping. Thus, in terms of Section 29 of the Act, onus was upon the accused to rebut the presumption but accused failed to adduce any evidence in this regard. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that prosecution has succeeded to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed the offence of sexual assault is defined under Section 7 of the Act, which is punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Since, accused has also stated whether she would love him or not, accused is also liable for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.
25. Now coming to the contradictions between PW10 and PW11. No doubt, there is contradiction between the testimony of PW10 and PW11 as PW10 deposed that he reached the school between 11.15 AM to 11.20 AM whereas PW11 deposed that he reached the school by 12 Noon and he completed the rukka at about 12.50 PM and thereafter he gave rukka to Constable Ashwani. Thus, according to PW11 Constable Ashwani reached SC No. 60/13 13 of 21 State Vs. Manish the school after 12 Noon. But to my mind, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said contradiction is not fatal to the prosecution case in any manner.
26. Admittedly, the signature of complainant is not mentioned on the FIR Ex.PW9/B and prosecution failed to produce any evidence on record to show that the copy of FIR was given to the complainant. It is pertinent to state that in the FIR, there is column No. 14 where the signature of complainant is to be obtained to the effect that the copy of FIR was given to the complainant and the FIR is found to be recorded true and correct but no such signature had been obtained. Thus, there is a lapse on the part of investigating agency. Needless to say that it is the statutory right of the complainant to have a copy of FIR and due to that reason, a duty has been cast upon the investigating agency to hand over the copy of FIR to the complainant free of cost and to take the signature of complainant as an acknowledgement but it has been observed by this Court that the said column remains always blank. This shows that the police officers are not complying with the provision of law in its letter and spirit. But in the instant case, the said lapse on the part of investigating agency is not fatal to the prosecution case in any manner as there are sufficient cogent evidence on record to prove the guilt of accused.
27. Admittedly, no public witness was asked to join the proceeding by PW11 at the time of arrest of accused and this fact is admitted by PW11 in his cross-examination by deposing that no public witness was called when accused was arrested. It is admitted case of prosecution that accused was arrested from his house. Though PW11 deposed that he had informed the accused before interrogation that he has SC No. 60/13 14 of 21 State Vs. Manish a right to call his counsel but he failed to disclose what accused told to him. He further deposed that he did not recollect whether he informed the accused that he has a right to have a counsel before recording his disclosure statement. However, he admitted that he had not mentioned in the charge-sheet that he informed the accused about his statutory right. PW11 also admitted that when he recorded the disclosure statement of accused, no public person was present. The disclosure statement is Ex.PW11/F and as per the said document, same was recorded in the presence of Constable Pradeep but Constable Pradeep has not been examined by the prosecution. Thus, there no evidence on record to prove the said disclosure statement.
28. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that Section 41 (D) has been inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure by way of Amendment Act 5 of 2009 with effect from November 01 , 2010 and same is reproduced as under:
41 D Right of arrested person to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation - When any person is arrested and interrogated by the police, he shall be entitled to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, though not throughout interrogation (emphasis supplied)
29. By inserting Section 41 D in Cr. P.C., a right has been given to the arrested person to consult an advocate of his choice during interrogation. The purpose of Section 41 D is that accused should know about constitutional and other statutory rights. Thus, it is the duty of arresting officer to inform the accused about his statutory right to the accused at the time of arrest. But this provision was not adhered to by PW11 at the time of arrest. Thus, PW11 also violated Section 41 D of Cr.
SC No. 60/13 15 of 21
State Vs. Manish
P.C.
30. No doubt, the said lapse on the part of PW11 may cause some doubt over the disclosure statement Ex.PW11/F. But since, no recovery is affected pursuant to the said disclosure statement and the fact that said disclosure statement otherwise has no evidentiary value as same is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, I am of the view that said lapse is not fatal to prosecution case as there are other overwhelming evidence on record to prove the guilt of accused.
31. Though, the age of victim is not disputed by the counsel during the course of arguments, yet it is pertinent to state that the date of birth of victim is proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. PW1 deposed that PW2 was born on November 14, 1996 and her date of birth is also proved from the school record. Certificate issued by Vice Principal is Ex.PW6/B. Thus, it is established that victim was child at the time of alleged incident in terms of provisions of POCSO Act.
32. At last, I come to the contradictions between the testimony of PW3 and PW4 on the one hand and PW8 on the other hand. PW3 and PW4 in their deposition deposed that accused was apprehended by their PT teacher PW8 Dharmender whereas PW8 deposed that he had chased the accused and apprehended him at Pratap Nagar and while he was bringing him to the school, accused got rid of himself and run away. Thus, to my mind there is no contradiction in their deposition as PW8 deposed that he could not succeed to apprehend the accused as accused had run away from his clutches. Further, PW8 also identified the accused. To my mind, the said contradiction is not helpful to the accused in any manner as SC No. 60/13 16 of 21 State Vs. Manish identity of accused is not in dispute. It is undisputed fact that that accused earlier used to study in the same school and it is also admitted case of accused that victim was his friend, thus, there was no reason for any confusion in the identity of accused. All the witnesses have categorically identified the accused during trial.
33. Pondering over the ongoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has succeeded to prove the guilt of accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under Section 8 & 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 read with Section 354/509/506 Part-I of Indian Penal Code, thus, I hereby hold the accused Manish guilty thereunder.
Announced in the open Court
on this 05th day of June,2014 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01
Central District, THC
SC No. 60/13 17 of 21
State Vs. Manish
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 ( CENTRAL): DELHI SC No. 60/2013 ID No. 02401R0101982013 FIR No. : 09/13 Police Station : Gulabi Bagh Under Section : 354/506/509 IPC & 8/12 of POCSO Act State Versus Manish S/o Ram Kumar R/o Jhuggi No. 101, Subzi Mandi, Ganda Nala, Delhi .............Convict Present: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state Sh. A.S. Rajput, Advocate, counsel for the convict ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE:-
1. Vide separate judgement dated June 5, 2014, accused Manish was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8 & 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and under Section 354/509/506-Part I of Indian Panel Code.
SC No. 60/13 18 of 21
State Vs. Manish
2. Learned counsel appearing for convict requests for a lenient view on the ground that convict is a young boy of 19 + years and he is helping his parents at their shop. It is further submitted that convict has no criminal antecedent and it was his first offence. It is further submitted that it has been proved on record that there was some intimacy atleast in past between the convict and victim and victim used to have joint photo-sessions with the convict and victim had also visited Barellie. It is submitted that due to the friendship/intimacy, victim and convict used to meet and talked to each other and when victim all of sudden stopped talking with the convict, probably this conduct of victim instigated the convict to visit her school to make enquiry from her about her said conduct. Learned counsel submits that in these facts and circumstances, a lenient view be taken and convict be released on probation of good conduct. It is further submitted that since the convict is a young boy of 19+ years, there is every chance of his reformation and if he be sent to jail among the hard core criminals, there is possibility that he may become the criminal after completion of his sentence.
3. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the said contentions and requests for maximum sentence as provided under the Act.
4. I have heard rival submissions advanced by counsel for both the parties, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful considerations to their contentions.
5. Indisputably, convict is a young boy of 19+ years and he has SC No. 60/13 19 of 21 State Vs. Manish no criminal antecedents. It is also proved during trial that there was some intimacy/friendship between convict and victim. Thus, these facts are mitigating factors in favour of the convict, hence are relevant to determine the quantum of sentence. In view of the said mitigating factors, I do not find any substance in the contention of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for maximum sentence.
6. However, simultaneously, it is also undisputed fact that a minimum sentence of three years has been provided for the offence punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act. Thus, if convict be released on probation of good conduct as prayed by learned defence counsel, the object of legislature to provide minimum sentence will be defeated. In these circumstances, I am of the view that convict cannot be released on probation of good conduct as prayed by learned defence counsel.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hereby sentence the convict Manish rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of ` 2000/- in default further simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act. I also sentence the convict rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 506-Part I IPC.
8. In view of sentence awarded under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, no separate sentence is passed against the convict for the offence punishable under Section 12 of POCSO Act and under Section 354/509 IPC.
9. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section SC No. 60/13 20 of 21 State Vs. Manish 428 Cr.P.C be given to the convict.
10. Copy of judgement along with order on the point of sentence be given to the convict/his counsel free of cost.
11. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on this 07th day of June,2014 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 Central District, THC/sv SC No. 60/13 21 of 21