SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Bom) 433

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.
KHALIL MEHBOOB SHAIKH - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 315 of 2014
Decided On : 30-01-2019

Advocates Appeared:
A.H.H. Ponda, Shailesh Kharat, S.S. Pednekar.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 166A, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 370, 370A, 375, 376, 376A, 376C, 376D, 376E, 509, 323 and 377 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 45 and 106 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 6, 5 and 42 - Sexually Abusing - Pay Compensation To Victim - Appellant herein is convicted for offence punishable and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month - Appellant is also directed to pay compensation to victim of offence vide judgment and order passed by designated court in sessions case - Such of facts necessary for decision of this appeal are as follows - PW1 was on night patrolling duty and he received a phone call from police station and patrolling staff was informed that some suspicious persons have entered on terrace of building of railway colony - PW1 along with PI reached building - They went to terrace - They were also accompanied by personnel of crime detection branch - On terrace they saw that victim was denuded of all his clothes and accused appellant was doing an unnatural act with victim and sexually abusing him - Child was crying and shouting when police appeared - They consoled child and accused was taken into custody - Held, Court has to strike balance between reformative theory and principle of proportionality - Sentencing for any offence has a social goal - Sentence is to be imposed regard being had to nature of offence and manner in which offence has been committed - Fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based on principle that accused must realize that crime committed by him has not only created a dent in his life but also a concavity in social fabric - Purpose of just punishment is designed so that individuals in society which ultimately constitute collective do not suffer time and again for such crime - It serves as a deterrent while carrying out this complex exercise it is obligatory on part of court to see impact of offence on society as a whole and its ramifications on immediate collective as well as its repercussions on victim - Report received from road central prison shows that accused/appellant has undergone of actual imprisonment - Appellant shall serve rest of substantive substance - Hence sentence awarded to appellant for offence punishable is maintained and sentence for offence punishable is set aside - Appeal Stands Disposed Of.

JUDGMENT :

Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.

1. The appellant herein is convicted for offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant is also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the victim of the offence vide judgment and order dated 27th February 2014 passed by the Designated Court under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 464 of 2013. Hence, this appeal.

2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows:

(i) On 14th February 2013 P.W.-1 Sujit Manohar Mone was on night patrolling duty and he received a phone call from Nirmal Nagar Police Station and the patrolling staff was informed that some suspicious persons have entered on the terrace of building No. 210 of Railway Colony.

(ii) P.W. 1 Sujit Manohar Mone alongwith PI Sonawane reached the building. They went to the terrace. They were also accompanied by the personnel of Crime Detection Branch. On the terrace, they saw that the victim (child) was denuded of all his clothes and the accused appellant was doing an unnatural act with the victim and sexually abusing him. The child was crying and shouting when the police appeared. They consoled the child and the accused was taken into custody.

(iii) The child has disclosed his name and that he is 16 years old. On further enquiry, the child master "X" has disclosed that his father had expired before his birth and his mother had expired at the time of delivering of child. He was brought up by his grandparents. He was on trip to Mumbai alongwith his grand-parents. On 13th February, 2013 when he had alighted from the train at Borivali station at 10.30 pm. for food, he had missed the train. Thereafter, he had reached Bandra station on the next day and on 14th February 2013, the accused-appellant had lured him with some money and had taken him to the nearby building and had forcibly performed carnal unnatural intercourse with him.

(iv) The accused was taken in custody by the Crime Detection branch. The victim was taken to the police station and his oral report was reduced into writing on 15th February 2013. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 56 of 2013 was registered at Nirmal Nagar Police Station against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 377 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(l)/6 of the protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

(v) After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 464 of 2013. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.

3. P.W.1, Sujit Manohar Mone happens to be the Constable who had received information on the wireless and has reached the spot and rescued the child. The accused was given in custody of Crime Detection branch.

4. P.W. 2- Master "X" is the victim. He has deposed before the Court that he has studied up to 7th standard in St. Mary School, Bangalore. He has studied as residential student. He passed 7th standard in 2009. The child could not state his date of birth. He has deposed that they had come to Mumbai by train and he missed his grand-parents. He has narrated the trauma which he has gone through. He has deposed that he had slept on the rai



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top