Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
GANESAN – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 680 of 2020 (Arising from S.L.P.(Criminal) No.4976 of 2020)
Decided on : 14-10-2020
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 7 read with Section 8 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012 – Rule 7(2) – Rape of minor girl – Conviction and sentence – Victim has fully supported case of prosecution – She has narrated in detail how incident has taken place – She has been thoroughly and fully cross-examined – No good reason not to rely upon deposition of victim – Victim aged 15 years at the time of deposition is a matured one – She is trustworthy and reliable – As per settled proposition of law, even there can be conviction based on sole testimony of victim, however, she must be found to be reliable and trustworthy – Sole testimony of victim is absolutely trustworthy and unblemished and her evidence is of sterling quality – Trial Court has not committed any error in convicting accused, relying upon deposition of victim – Trial Court has imposed minimum sentence provided under Section 8 of POCSO Act – Trial Court has already shown leniency – Allegations against accused which are proved from deposition of victim are very serious, which cannot be permitted in civilized society – Considering object and purpose of POCSO Act and considering the evidence on record, High Court has rightly convicted accused for offence under Section 7 of POCSO Act and has rightly sentenced accused to undergo three years R.I. which is minimum sentence provided under Section 8 of POCSO Act – So far as amount of compensation awarded by trial Court is concerned, High Court has modified the same and has directed State to pay compensation to victim and thereafter to recover same from accused under provisions of land revenue, if it finds that accused has sufficient means – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 9, 9.3, 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Appellant herein – original accused was tried by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. That relying upon the deposition of victim, who at the relevant time was studying in 5th standard and aged 13 years, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, which is the minimum sentence provided under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Trial Court also passed an order to pay rupees one lakh to the victim girl, by way of compensation, under Rule 7(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012.
Findings of Court:
Trial Court has imposed the minimum sentence provided under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, trial Court has already shown the leniency. Allegations against the accused which are proved from the deposition of PW3 are very serious, which cannot be permitted in the civilized society.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 844 of 2018, the appellant – original accused has preferred the present appeal.
3. That the appellant herein – original accused was tried by the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act”). That relying upon the deposition of PW3 – victim, who at the relevant time was studying in 5th standard and aged 13 years, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, which is the minimum sentence provided under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The learned trial Court also passed an order to pay rupees one lakh to the victim girl, by way of compensation, under Rule 7(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentenced passed by the learned trial Court, the accused preferred appeal before the High Court being Criminal Appeal No. 844 of 2018. The appeal was taken up for further hearing on 24.04.2019. The High Court noted that there was no representation on behalf of the appellant and therefore by order dated 24.04.2019 directed to remove the name of the appellant’s counsel and further directed the High Court Legal Aid Committee to appoint Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant. The appeal was listed for further hearing on 29.04.2019. On 29.04.2019, the learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the appellant made only submission with respect to compensation of rupees one lakh awarded by the learned trial Court awarded to the victim girl under Rule 7(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012. It was submitted on behalf of the accused that he is unable to pay the compensation of rupees one lakh to the victim girl and pleaded leniency and requested to set aside the order of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court. That by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2019, the High Court partly allowed the said appeal and modified the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court with respect to compensation only and modified the said order to the effect that compensation amount shall be paid by the State to the victim girl and thereafter if the State finds that the accused has got sufficient means, the same can be recovered from the accused under the Revenue Recovery Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal so far as the conviction and imposition of sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment is concerned.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2019 passed by the High Court, the original accused has preferred the present appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that no sufficient opportunity was given to the accused before passing the impugned judgment and order. It is submitted that the High Court has passed the order on 24.04.2019 providing the services of Legal Aid Counsel to represent the case of the appellant and thereafter the learned Legal Aid Counsel was heard on 29.04.2019, i.e., within a period of four days only and without considering the appeal on merits the impugned judgment and order has been passed. It is submitted that it was very short time for the Legal Aid Counsel to receive the papers from the Registry and inspect the original documents. It is further submitted that as observed by this Court in the case of Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2020 SC 232 that failure to afford hearing to the accused violates even minimum standards of due process of law. It is submitted that it is further observed that the legal services provided to the accused
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
