Manoj VS State of Uttarakhand

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

PANKAJ PUROHIT
Manoj – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Ms. Sheetal Selwal, learned counsel, Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, learned
For the State of Uttarakhand:Additional Advocate General with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. and Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder

JUDGMENT

Pankaj Purohit, J.—This Appeal is preferred by appellant from Jail assailing the judgment and order dated 15.11.2023, passed by learned FTC/Additional Sessions/Special Judge POCSO, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No.150 of 2019, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Manoj, whereby, the appellant-Manoj was convicted under Sections 376(2) and 506 IPC, and sentenced to undergo ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation further two months’ additional rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(2) IPC; two years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation further 15 days additional rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 IPC; the appellant was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, however, at the time of conviction, as per Section 376(2) IPC, the punishment prescribed for the offence is more severe than the POCSO Act, 2012 for similar aggravated offences; under Section 42 of the 2012 Act, where there is a conflict between punishments prescribed under IPC and POCSO Act, the greater punishment shall prevail. Therefore