Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.10.2020, convicting the appellant herein for an offence under Section 363 IPC read with Section 8 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred as 'The POCSO Act). By a separate order dated 20.11.2020, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.2,500/- for offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and in default further imprisonment for a period of three years. The appellant is also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs. 2,500, for the offence punishable under Section 8 POCSO Act and in default of payment further imprisonment for a period of three months, both the sentences shall run concurrently.

5. The trial Court observed that though there are discrepancies in the statement of the victim, but these discrepancies do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the case of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court held that the statements of the witness and victim conclusively establish that the accused took the victim to a house in Matiala. The Trial Court relied on the deposition of the mother of the victim (PW-3) that the child victim returned home at 8 PM, and narrated the entire incident to her, which corroborates the statement of the accused. The Trial Court held that even in the absence of any other witness, the victim has stated in all her statements that the accused had taken the victim to a house in Matiala and held her wrist tightly. The Trial Court did not accept the defence of the accused that the family of the accused and the victim are neighbours and there were previous fights between them and the appellant had been implicated. The learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 363 IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO and sentenced the appellant to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.2,500/- for offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and in default further imprisonment for a period of three years. The appellant is also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs. 2,500, for the offence punishable under Section 8 POCSO Act and in default of payment further imprisonment for a period of three months.

8. Per contra, Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State supports the impugned judgment and states that the testimony of the child victim and her mother are consistent and reliable. She further states that no one would tutor a child to file a false case as revenge for a simple quarrel over drying of clothes. It was also submitted that appellant was already known to the child victim being her neighbour.

9. The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 363 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act. Section 361 IPC is punishable under Section 363 IPC.

20. The Judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 363 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act is upheld. The minimum sentence that can be imposed on a person convicted for an offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is three years which has been awarded by the Trial Court. The appeal is dismissed.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

APRIL 05, 2021 Rahul