Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court below in Spl. POCSO (S.C.) No. 35/2015 dated 14.02.2017/ 15.02.2017 wherein the accused is convicted for the offences punishable u/S 376 of IPC and u/S 5(1) r/w Sec. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable u/S 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Sec. 376 of IPC with default clause.

2. Brief factual matrix of the case are as under:

That the victim girl is a minor aged about 16 years; he induced her that he will marry her and saying so had sexual intercourse with her in a garden land belonging to Mahantesh Pattanshetty of Irakalgada; on 02.08.2015 kidnapped her, took her to Kunchur village near Ranebennur, kept her in a room near the house of one Somappa Babujan and had sexual intercourse with her. On the filing of the complaint by the complainant, case in Crime No. 196/2015 as per Ex.P.14 came to be registered by the Police against the accused for the offences punishable u/S 363, 376 of IPC besides Sec. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. PW13 -Pramod, H.C. No. 135 of Koppal Rural Police Station received the complaint as per Ex.P.8. After investigation charge sheet has been laid by the Investigating Officer against the accused for the aforesaid offences as where the trial Court has framed the charge sheet against the accused, the accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt against the accused examined witnesses as per PWs.1 to 16 and got marked documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.18. On appreciation of the entire materials placed by the prosecution analytically held conviction against the accused for the offence punishable u/S 376 of IPC r/w Sec. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. It is this judgment which is challenged in this appeal.

26. Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act is a punishment clause relating to the sexual assault but the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused u/S 376 of IPC. Therefore, it is held that the conviction u/S 6 of the POCSO Act r/w Sec. 376 of IPC for a period of ten years and also sentenced to fine, which is incorporated in the operative portion of the judgment, Therefore, the sentence which is held against the accused is required to be interfered in this appeal.

ORDER Appeal filed by the appellant-accused Somappa @ Swami u/S 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the judgment passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Koppal, in Spl. POCSO (S.C.) No. 35/2015 dated 14.02.2017/ 15.02.2017 convicting him for the offences punishable u/S 376 of IPC and u/S 5(1) r/w Sec. 6 of POCSO Act, and sentencing for the offence punishable u/S 6 of the POCSO Act r/w Sec. 376 of IPC is hereby set aside. He is set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.