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

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.
Khalil Mehboob Shaikh Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.315 of 2014
Decided on 30.1.2019

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. A.H.H. Ponda I/by Mr. Shailesh Kharat, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP

IMPORTANT POINT
It is incumbent upon investigating agency to obtain necessary documents to determine date of birth of victim.

Headnote:Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323 and 377 – Hurt and unnatural offence – Conviction and sentence – Victim has been cross-examined at length – Defence has failed to create any dent in his evidence as stated in examination-in-chief – It was incumbent upon investigating agency to obtain School leaving certificate of victim especially when he had given all details of institutions where he had studied, to determine date of birth of victim – Doctor, who on the basis of Ossification Test has concluded that victim was below 18 years of age – Sentence awarded to appellant for offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act maintained and sentence for offence punishable under Section 377 of Indian Penal Code set aside. (Paras 5, 11, 14, 21 and 22)

       Result: Appeal disposed of.

JUDGMENT

Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.—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 grandparents. 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, chargesheet 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 grandparents. He has narrated the trauma which he has gone through. He has deposed that he had slept on the railway s

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top