Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Incestuous in State Of Sikkim vs Taraman Kami on 1 December, 2017Matching Fragments
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. Crl.A. No.32 of 2016 (Taraman Kami vs. State of Sikkim) and Crl.A.13 of 2017 (State of Sikkim vs. Taraman Kami) are being disposed of by this common Judgment, being related matters.
2. In Crl.A. No.32 of 2016, the Learned Court of the Special Judge (POCSO), West Sikkim, at Gyalshing, in Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case No.05 of 2016, convicted the Appellant for incestuous sexual assault under Sections 5(l) and 5(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity "POCSO Act"), and under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the "IPC"), vide the impugned Judgment dated 27-09-2016. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 10 (ten) years and fined Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, under Sections 5(l) and 5(n) of the POCSO Act, with a default stipulation, and simple imprisonment of one year under Section 506 of the IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, duly setting off the detention already undergone by the Appellant. The Judgment and Order on Sentence are being assailed in this Appeal.
Taraman Kami vs. State of Sikkim and State of Sikkim vs. Taraman Kami
3. In Crl.A. No.13 of 2017, the State-Appellant assailed the Order on Sentence detailed hereinabove, and prayed for imposition of the maximum sentence provided by law, inter alia, on grounds that the Learned Trial Court failed to consider the incestuous nature and gravity of the offence, the perpetrator being the father of the victim. This was vehemently resisted by Counsel for the Respondent on the premise that no such offence against the victim had been made out beyond a reasonable doubt by the Prosecution.
8. Upon hearing Learned Counsel for the opposing parties, the Learned Trial Court framed Charge against the Appellant under Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act, for repeated penetrative sexual assault and Section 5(n) of the POCSO Act for incestuous penetrative sexual assault, on the minor "Victim A" and for the self- same offences against the minor "Victim B" and under Section 506 of the IPC. Having understood the Charges, the Appellant entered a plea of "not guilty", trial thus commenced. The Prosecution examined 11 (eleven) witnesses, including the I.O. of the case, on closure of which the Appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the arguments of opposing parties heard. An analysis of the evidence on record resulted in the impugned judgment and Order on Sentence.