Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The instant appeal, under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code'), has been preferred by appellant Ramu (in short 'appellant') against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2015, passed by Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO Act') /Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Barabanki, in Session Trial No.652 of 2013, (State vs. Ramu), arising out of Case Crime No.181 of 2013, Police Station Ramsanehi Ghat, District Barabanki whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act and has been sentenced for offence under Section 376 IPC for 14 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- with further direction that in default of payment of fine, the appellant has to further undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment and again has been sentenced for offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act for same sentence i.e. 14 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- with further direction that in default of payment of fine, the appellant has to further undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

47. Now coming to this case, offence of rape has been committed by the appellant with victim aged about 8 years. He has been convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act, 2012 and has been sentenced for 14 years imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 376 IPC and also has been sentenced for same punishment for offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act.

48. Section 376 (2) (i) IPC (as it was on the date of offence i.e. on 25.07.2013) provides the following punishment for rape with victim under 16 years of age.

54. In view of the provision contained in Section 42 of POCSO Act, Trial Judge ought to have punished appellant only in Section 376 I.P.C., not in Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. In addition to it, he ought not to have punished appellant both in Sections 376 I.P.C. and in Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

55. In the light of the above discussion, judgment and order dated 28.02.2015 passed by the trial Court, in Session Trial No.652 of 2013 (State vs. Ramu) so far as it relates to conviction of appellant, is maintained and affirmed but the sentence is modified. His sentence under Section 376 IPC is maintained. The appellant Ramu has to undergo 14 years rigorous imprisonment, with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo additional one year imprisonment. No separate sentence is required for offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.