Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH PORT BLAIR
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.
Sameer Mondal – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
CRA No. 1 of 2021
Decided On : 25-08-2023
POCSO - Sexual Harassment - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 8, Indian Penal Code, Section 354 - Section 8 of POCSO Act, Section 354 of IPC - The court discussed the provisions of Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354 of the IPC, highlighting the definitions of sexual assault and punishment for sexual assault. The court emphasized the foundational facts required to establish the prosecution case and the presumption of guilt against the accused under the POCSO Act. The judgment also addressed the contradictions in the evidence and the reliability of the victim girls' testimony, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the sexual harassment of school girls by the appellant and another individual on a bus. The victim girl reported the incident to the police, leading to the initiation of a case under Section 354/34 IPC and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proven the case beyond reasonable doubt based on the credible testimony of the victim girl and her friends, despite minor contradictions in the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of fine and default sentence awarded by the trial Court was maintained.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, contradictions in the witness testimonies, and the foundational facts required to establish the prosecution case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the foundational facts required to establish the prosecution case and the presumption of guilt against the accused under the POCSO Act. It also highlighted the reliability of the victim girls' testimony and the minor contradictions in the evidence.
Final Decision: The instant criminal appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of fine and default sentence awarded by the trial Court was maintained. Set off was ordered under Section 428 of Cr.P.C, and the respondent was directed to take necessary urgent steps to secure the appellant/accused to undergo the remaining period of the sentence. No order as to costs was made, and the LCR along with a copy of the judgment was to be sent down to the learned Trial Court for necessary action.
JUDGMENT :
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.
1. The instant appeal had been directed against judgment and order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Andaman and Nicobar Islands in Special Case No. 2 of 2014 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer three years of rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for one year for offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case originated on the basis of the complaint lodged by the victim girl precisely stating on her way to return from school she used to avail one STS bus. On 04.11.2013 at about 3:00 P.M she boarded the aforesaid bus to return home. The appellant alongwith Hariprasad boarded the said bus when it reached Laxmipur bus stop alongwith certain school boys and girls who were the residents of Milangran basti, the appellant and his aforesaid companion started to harass the school girls present in the bus. They disturbed them uttering filthy language. One of her companion girls left her seat being offended by the language used by the perpetrators and approached the front side of the bus. While she was intercepted by the appellant Sameer Mondal who caught hold of her private parts from the back, she escaped from his clutches and ran ahead. The other convict Hari Prashad grasped the hands of two other girl students and placed his hands on the shoulder of another girl student who resisted him. When the victim went to alight from the bus the appellant Sameer Mondal touched her buttocks, pulled her towards him by holding her waist and kept his hands on her chest. Being prevented by the victim girl the appellant laughed loudly. The victim girl thereafter on reaching her house reported the incident to the Police and lodged the complaint at the Police Station.
3. Based on the complaint, Diglipur Police Station Case No. 58/13 dated 4.11.2013 was initiated under Section 354/34 IPC and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Investigation progressed and resulted in the submission of Charge Sheet being No. 068/2013 dated 30.11.2013 to which both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case cited eight witnesses and exhibited certain documents. The defence cited two defence witnesses.
5. The Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the prosecution did not cite any independent witness to justify its case. The bus driver as well as the conductor were not examined. He stressed upon the contradiction in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses as follows:
(b) PW-7 in her examination in chief further stated that when her bus stop arrived, she got down from the bus and went back to her house. Sameer Mondal also teased other girls travelling in the said bus. The other girls students who were travelling by the bus came to her and asked her to go to the police station for lodging complaint.
(c) PW-1 stated in her examination in chief that Sameer Mondal arrived by her side and started uttering silly abusive language. When her bus stop arrived and she intended to get down, Sameer Mondal caught hol
The foundational facts required to establish the prosecution case, the presumption of guilt against the accused under the POCSO Act, and the reliability of the victim girls' testimony were the centra....
The act of touching a minor's breast constitutes sexual assault under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, affirming that sexual intent is sufficient to establish culpability irrespective of skin contact.
(1) Attempt to outrage modesty of minor girl – In order to bring home charge under Section 354 of IPC thereof, prosecution is required to establish that accused, with criminal or sexual intent, assau....
Victim's credible testimony and unrebutted Section 29 POCSO presumption prove sexual assault; sentence modified for lack of aggravating evidence.
The competence of child witnesses, scrutiny of hostile witnesses' testimony, and the significance of corroborative evidence and the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act are central legal pri....
A minor's consistent and corroborated testimony can alone suffice for conviction in sexual offence cases under POCSO, even amid investigative lapses.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
