Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Aaditya @ Sadanand Dilip Parab, was convicted by the Special Judge under POCSO Act, Greater Mumbai, for offences under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the POCSO offence, and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the IPC offence, with sentences to run concurrently. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence before the Bombay High Court. The prosecutrix, aged about 13 years, testified that in November 2013, she received a missed call from a mobile number and upon calling back, the appellant introduced himself as a friend of her brother. He later met her near her school, took her to a secluded place, and committed penetrative sexual assault. The medical evidence corroborated the assault. The High Court found the testimony of the prosecutrix to be credible and trustworthy, and the medical evidence supported the prosecution case. The court held that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the sentence was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Section 4, Section 42 POCSO Act, Section 366(A) IPC - Conviction upheld based on credible testimony of 13-year-old prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence and prompt FIR - Held that the evidence of the child witness was trustworthy and the medical evidence supported the prosecution case (Paras 3-10). B) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Sentencing - Section 4 POCSO Act - Rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.2,000/- imposed - Held that the sentence is appropriate and not excessive (Paras 1, 11). C) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Section 42 POCSO Act - Bar on separate conviction under IPC - Since appellant convicted under Section 4 POCSO Act, no separate punishment under Section 376 IPC - Held that the trial court correctly applied Section 42 (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 366(A) of IPC is sustainable based on the evidence of the prosecutrix and medical evidence.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.49 of 2014 on 5th March, 2016, are upheld.
Law Points
- Credibility of child witness
- Corroboration of medical evidence
- Applicability of POCSO Act
- Sentencing under Section 4 POCSO Act
- Section 42 POCSO Act bar on separate conviction under IPC
