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

G. A. SANAP
Surendra – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. A.D. Tote, Advocate (appointed)
For the Respondent: Ms. Soniya Thakur, Addl. Public Prosecutor (‘APP’)

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Heard.

2. In this appeal, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Amravait, in Spl. Case No.57/2019, whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i)(f)(j)(n), 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 8, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short “POCSO Act”). The learned Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(f)(j) of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence has been awarded for the other proved offences.

3. Background facts:-

4. The victim girl is a daughter of the appellant. The crime was registered on the report of the victim girl. The case of the prosecution, which can be unfolded from the report and other material is that the victim girl, the appellant-father, the younger brother and the mother of the appellant used to reside together. The victim girl on the date of the incident was 14 year

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top