Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 16.11.2016 and order dated 17.11.2016 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in Sessions trial no. 04(03)15 arising out of POCSO Case No. 43 of 2014, convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code for simple imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months; for offence punishable under Section 506 (part-II) of the Indian Penal Code to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of seven years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months; and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

3.Upon completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

4.Charge under Section 448/376(2)(i)/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, was framed against the appellant, who stated to be not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 13 witnesses and proved number of documents. The defence case appearing from answers given by the appellant during his examination under section 313 of CrPC is of falsity due to old animosity and of innocence. The defence adduced the evidence of DW1, Lakh Debi Singha in order to substantiate the fact that the appellant is not the actual perpetrator of the crime rather some other person has committed the crime upon the victim, who used to visit her.

Section 5 of POCSO Act, 2012, defines aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, envisages the penal provision for such offence. Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, 2012 defines "Child" as person below the age of 18 years.
Therefore, the first and foremost aspect which needs scrutiny for primary application of both the aforesaid penal provisions is the age of the victim girl at the time of the commission of the offence. As per the prosecution case the age of the victim at the time of the incident was 15 years.

12. Now coming to the aspect of sentencing, the trial court has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 for rigorous imprisonment for life. In a criminal trial the aspect of sentencing has remained a vital question bearing upon the aggravating circumstances before the court. Crime against woman is increasing as a whole. Such type of crime is a direct insult to the human dignity of the society and therefore imposition of any inadequate sentence not only results in injustice to the victim and the society in general but also stimulates criminal activities. Obligation is thus bestowed upon the court for imposing appropriate punishment against such criminals in response to the cry of the society. While considering the appropriate punishment the court has not only to keep in view the rights of the criminal/accused but also the rights of the victim who suffers in the hands of the perpetrator of crime. The offence of rape and sexual assault not only cause physical scar but also cause mental scar which the victim has to bear throughout her life. In the present case, offence of penetrative sexual assault has been committed upon a helpless victim of 14 years which is inhumane and shakes the judicial conscience. However, keeping in mind the entirety of the circumstances I am of the opinion that the quantum of sentence imposed by the trial court for rigorous imprisonment for life in respect of offence under section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which is the maximum one, needs to be re- looked. Ordinarily sentence should be commensurate with the gravity of offence and should act as deterrent to commission of such offences. Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 contemplates punishment with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. In the present case in hand it is found that there was repeated sexual assault upon the victim by the appellant resulting in her pregnancy, which is an aggravating circumstance. Thus keeping in mind the entire gamut of circumstances, in my view, a term of 14 years of rigorous imprisonment will be commensurate with the nature of offence and accordingly sentence for rigorous imprisonment for life imposed in respect of Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of 14 years. The sentence of fine together with default clause as imposed by the trial court is maintained. The sentence in respect of offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 is modified to the aforesaid extent. The compensation granted to the victim under the 'Victim Compensation Scheme' and disbursement of the fine amount to the victim, if recovered from the appellant, is also maintained.