Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 460
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SURESH REDDY, K. SREENIVASA REDDY, JJ.
Sk. Munna Abdul Khadar Jilani, S/o. Jani - Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep. PP., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 66, 147, 157, 256 & 994 of 2017
Decided On : 30-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, Srinivasa Rao Narra.
IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the importance of protecting minors from sexual offences and establishes that delays in reporting do not negate the validity of victim testimonies in such cases.
Headnote:
POCSO - Sexual Offences - POCSO Act, 2012 Sections 4, 6, 12, 14; IPC Sections 376, 384 - The court upheld convictions under POCSO and IPC, emphasizing the protection of minors and the seriousness of sexual offences, while addressing evidentiary concerns and the status of juvenile offenders.
Fact of the Case:
Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were charged with multiple offences under the POCSO Act and IPC, including penetrative sexual assault and extortion from minor victims. The trial court convicted them based on testimonies and evidence presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the minor victims credible despite delays in reporting, and upheld the trial court's convictions, confirming the seriousness of the offences and the need for stringent punishment.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the convictions under the POCSO Act and IPC, and whether the delay in reporting affected the credibility of the victims' testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the protection of minors is paramount, and delays in reporting do not necessarily undermine the credibility of victims, especially in cases involving threats and intimidation.
Result: The appeals were dismissed, upholding the convictions and modifying the sentences for certain accused.
JUDGMENT :
K. Suresh Reddy, J.
Accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act – cum – Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada (for short, 'the trial Court'), are the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 994, 66, 157, 256 and 147 of 2017 respectively. Since all these appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were tried by the trial Court under the following charges :
I charge was under Section 4 read with Section 3 (a) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO Act'), against accused No. 1 or in the alternative under Section 376 (1) read with Clause I of 375 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') for committing penetrative sexual assault against P.W.2 on 12-12-2013 at about 3 p.m. at his house situated near Kennedy High School, Kanuru;
II charge was under Section 384 IPC against accused No. 1 for extorting a gold chain from P.W.2 under threat on 15-12-2013 at NTR Circle, Vijayawada;
III charge was under Section 384 IPC against accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 for extorting a gold chain from P.W.2 by showing video containing her sexual act with accused No. 1 four or five days prior to 15-12-2013;
IV charge was under Section 67 B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, against accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 for showing video of sexual act of P.W.2 with accused No. 1 four or five days prior to 15-12-2013;
V charge was under Section 6 read with Section 5 (g) of POCSO Act against accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 for committing gang penetrative sexual assault on P.W.2 on 15-02-2014 at about 1 p.m. or in the alternative under Section 376 D IPC or in the alternative under Section 6 read with Section 5 (1) of POCSO Act or in the alternative under Section 376 (2) read with Section 376 (2) (n) IPC;
VI charge was under Section 4 read with Section 3 (a) of POCSO Act against accused No. 1 for committing penetrative sexual assault on P.W.4 during June, 2014 at 7 p.m. or in the alternative under Section 376 (1) read with Clause I of 375 IPC;
VII charge was under Section 12 read with Section 11 (i) of POCSO Act against accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 for committing sexual harassment against P.W.4 during the last week of July, 2014, or in the alternative under Section 354 A (2) read with Section 354 A (1) (ii) IPC;
VIII charge was under Section 384 IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for extorting gold rings from P.W.6 two months prior to 08-09-2014 at Kamayyathopu Centre Bus Stop, Kanuru;
IX charge was under Section 12 read with Section 11 (i) of POCSO Act for committing sexual harassment on P.W.6 two months prior to 08-09-2014 at Kamayyathopu Centre Bus Stop, Kanuru, or in the alternative under Section 354 (2) read with Section 354 A (1) (iv) IPC;
X charge was under Section 14 (2) read with Section 13 (a) (b) of POCSO Act against accused No. 1 for using P.W.4 for pornographic purpose on 23-08-2014; and
XI charge was under Section 14 (1) read with Section 13 of POCSO Act against accused Nos. 2 to 5 for using P.W.4 for pornographic purpose on 23-08-2014 and 16-09-2014.
3. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the accused as under:
Under charges II and III, accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months; under charge IV, accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months; under charge V, accused No. 1 is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life i.e. natural life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, and accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 are
