Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Hanumant s/o Buwasaheb Deshmukh, was convicted by the Special Judge, Ambajogai in Special Case No. 06 of 2016 for offences under Sections 450 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 450 IPC, two years under Section 354A IPC, and three years under Section 8 POCSO Act, with fines, all sentences to run concurrently. The victim was a 7-year-old girl. The prosecution case was that on 13.02.2016, when the victim was alone in her uncle's house, the accused gave her a chocolate and inserted his finger into her vagina. The victim disclosed this to her father (PW2), who initially did not lodge a complaint due to fear of social defamation and after the accused apologized. However, on 05.03.2016, the accused again entered the house and repeated the act, and the victim shouted, causing the accused to flee. The father then lodged a complaint on 06.03.2016. The trial court framed charges under Sections 450, 354A, 376(2) IPC and Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 of POCSO Act. After trial, the court convicted the appellant under Sections 450, 354A IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act, but acquitted him of the other charges. The appellant appealed against the conviction and sentence. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The appellant's counsel argued that the delay in lodging the FIR (21 days) was fatal and that the evidence was unreliable. The State argued that the delay was explained and the evidence was credible. The court examined the evidence of the victim (PW1), her father (PW2), and the investigating officer (PW4). The court found that the victim's testimony was consistent and corroborated by her father's evidence. The delay was satisfactorily explained by the father's initial reluctance due to social stigma and the accused's apology. The court held that the conviction under Section 450 IPC (house-trespass) was not sustainable as the prosecution failed to prove that the accused committed house-trespass with intent to commit an offence. However, the conviction under Section 354A IPC (sexual harassment) and Section 8 POCSO Act (sexual assault) was upheld. The court modified the sentence by setting aside the conviction under Section 450 IPC and maintaining the other sentences, which were to run concurrently. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sexual Assault of Minor - POCSO Act, 2012, Section 8 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 450, 354A - Conviction based on testimony of victim and father - The appellant was convicted for inserting finger into vagina of a 7-year-old girl on two occasions. The court held that the evidence of the victim (PW1) and her father (PW2) was credible and consistent, and the delay in lodging FIR was properly explained by the father's initial attempt to avoid defamation. The conviction under Section 8 of POCSO Act was upheld, while the conviction under Section 450 IPC was set aside as the offence of house-trespass was not made out. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Delay in FIR - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Delay of 21 days in lodging FIR - The court held that the delay was satisfactorily explained by the father's fear of social defamation and his attempt to settle the matter with the accused, who apologized. The delay did not affect the credibility of the prosecution case. (Paras 2, 6) C) Criminal Law - Sentencing - POCSO Act, 2012, Section 8 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 450, 354A - The trial court sentenced the appellant to four years for Section 450 IPC, two years for Section 354A IPC, and three years for Section 8 POCSO Act. The High Court modified the sentence by setting aside the conviction under Section 450 IPC and maintaining the other sentences to run concurrently. (Paras 1, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 450, 354A IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction under Section 450 IPC is set aside. The conviction under Section 354A IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act is maintained. The sentences under Section 354A IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act shall run concurrently. The appellant is entitled to set off under Section 428 CrPC.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 8 of POCSO Act can be sustained even if charge under Section 376 IPC fails
- Delay in FIR is not fatal if properly explained
- Testimony of child victim is credible if corroborated by other evidence
- Sentence of three years under POCSO Act is adequate
