IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JITENDRA KUMAR, JJ.
Mannu @ Saddam @ Md. Mannu Sadam, S/o. Islam Khalifa @ Md. Eslam - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.550 Of 2021
Decided On : 30-10-2024
JUDGMENT :
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2021 and 19.07.2021 respectively passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-VIII-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Aurangabad, Bihar, in G.R. No. 72 of 2018, C.I.S. No. 72 of 2018 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 29 of 2018, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 342 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. From perusal of the impugned order of sentence, it transpires that in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the Trial Court has sentenced the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-and in case of default to pay the fine, he has been further directed to undergo additional simple imprisonment for six months. Under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant has been directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in case of default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment of three months. Under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/-and, in case of default to pay the fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 6 months. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. By the impugned order of sentence, the learned Trial Court has also found the informant as victim of the crime and recommended District Legal Services Authority, Aurangabad to pay Rs.4,00,000/-to the victim towards compensation. In case of any interim compensation being already paid to the victim, the same has been directed to be adjusted against final compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.
Prosecution case
3. The prosecution case as emerging from the written report received by the Aurangabad Mahila Police Station on 25.10.2018 is that on 21.10.2018 at about 4:00 P.M. the friend of the informant, namely, GuriyaPerween, took her to Dev market to purchase some articles for practical. Thereafter, she took the informant to her home. Thereafter, elder brother of her friend namely, Mannu @ Saddam, who is appellant herein, confined her to a room. When she tried to come out from the room, the appellant gagged her and kept her confined in the room and committed rape upon her whole night. In the next morning, when the appellant went out from the room to take water, she started crying calling the name of Guriya. Hearing her sound, GuriyaPerween came to her. The informant asked her to take her with herself. Thereafter, Guriyatook her with herself at about 4:00 A.M. to Aurangabad where both of them stayed in a Mosque at Kasai Mohalla. In the evening, she was again persuaded to go to Ranchi by bus wherefrom she was taken to Gumla. Thereafter, she was taken to the house of mousi of her friend at village Satbarva. Her mousi informed the brother of the informant and thereafter, her brother Shahnawaz Alam and Shahzad Alam reached there and taken to Dev Police Station on 25.10.2018 at 10 O’clock. Thereafter, she was sent to Mahila Police Station, Aurangabad.
Factual backgrounds
4. On the basis of the written report, Mahila P.S. Case No. 29 of 2018 was lodged against the appellant and co-accused GuriyaPerween for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 343, 376, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
5. After investigation, charge-sheet bearing No. 29 of 2018 dated 24.12.2018 was submitted against both the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 343, 376, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act. On her application, GuriyaPerween was declared juvenile and her case was separated and sent to Juvenile Justice Board.
6. Charge under Sections 343, 376, 120(B) of the India
Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana
Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh & Ors
Mano Dutt and another Vs. State of UP
Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra
Pulicherla Nagaraju Vs. State of A.P.
Harbans Kaur Vs. State of Haryana
Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of AP
Piara Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 452C. Muniappan & others Vs. State of T.N.
State of U.P. Vs. Krishan Master
Appabhai & Anr. Vs. State of Gujrat
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dal Singh
Smt. Shamim Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi)
S. Govidaarju Vs. State of Karnataka
Narotam Singh vs. State Of Punjab And Anr. (AIR 1978 SC 1542)
The prosecution must prove the victim's age as below 18 for POCSO applicability; failure to do so leads to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove foundational facts, including the victim's age, beyond reasonable doubt, even under statutory presumptions of the POCSO Act.
The prosecution must prove foundational facts of age and sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt, even with statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act.
The prosecution must prove foundational facts, including the victim's age and the occurrence of the alleged crime, beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the POCSO Act.
The victim's testimony, if found reliable, can form the sole basis for conviction under the POCSO Act, and legal presumption against the accused places the burden of rebuttal on the defense.
Victim testimony in sexual assault cases must be credible and consistent; considerable contradictions undermine prosecution's case under the POCSO Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.