Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, JJ.
Anand Patro, S/o Mohan Patro – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2019
Decided on : 11-09-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 342, 376, 506 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 6 – Conviction for abduction and aggravated sexual assault – Appellant convicted and sentenced to 15 years under Section 6 of POCSO Act, modified to 10 years based on precedents – The Trial Court did not find distinguishing features in roles of co-accused – Minimum punishment under Section 6 at the time of the offence was 10 years – The appeal was partly allowed to reduce the sentence. (Paras 4, 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellant and co-accused abducted a minor and committed aggravated sexual assault. The appellant was sentenced to 15 years under POCSO Act, while co-accused received lesser sentences.
Findings of Court:
The court found no justification for the disparity in sentencing among co-accused. Issues: Whether the Trial Court was justified in imposing a greater sentence on the appellant compared to co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the minimum punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault was 10 years at the time of the offence, and the Trial Court's sentence was modified accordingly.
Result: Appeal partly allowed, sentence modified to 10 years.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’ for brevity) has been filed by the appellant, Anand Patro, questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the Judgment dated 11.1.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bastar at Jagdalpur - cum - Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012) (‘Trial Court’ for brevity) in Special Sessions Case No.08 of 2017, by which the appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 363, 342, 376 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for brevity) as well as under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for brevity) and sentenced thereunder in the manner as mentioned at the chart given below:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
| 1. Under Section 363 of IPC. | 1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 Years. 2. Fine of Rs.1000/-. 3. In default of payment of fine, to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 month. |
| 2. Under Section 342 of IPC. | 1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 months. 2. Fine of Rs.500/-. 3. In default of payment of fine, to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 days. |
| 3. Under Section 506 of IPC. | 1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 months. 2. Fine of Rs.500/-. 3. In default of payment of fine, to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 days. |
| 4. Under Section 376 of IPC. | The appellant has not been punished under Section 376 of IPC instead he has been punished as given below under Section 6 of POCSO Act as the same being higher in degree than Section 376 of IPC in view of the provisions contained in Section 42 of POCSO Act. |
| 5. Under Section 6 of POCSO Act. | 1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 Years. 2. Fine of Rs.10,000/-. 3. In default of payment of fine, to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year. |
2. The appellant, Anand Patro, along with two other co-accused persons namely Premdan @ Mintu and Suresh @ Ramlal was tried before the Trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 363, 342, 376, 506 of IPC and under Section 6 of POCSO Act on the charges that on 25.12.2016 around 7:30 p.m., at Village Karkapal, they abducted the minor victim (PW-
1) from her lawful guardianship without her consent, wrongfully confined her and also committed rape/aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her without her consent by criminally intimidating her giving threat to her life.
3. Finally, after completion of a full-fledged trial, learned Trial Court by impugned Judgment dated 11.1.2019, convicted the appellant, Anand Patro, for offences under Sections 363, 342, 376 & 506 of IPC as well as under Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced him thereunder as mentioned at the chart given in the opening paragraph of this judgment, the greater sentence among them being 15 years’ Rigorous Imprisonment with fine and its default sentence under Section 6 of POCSO Act. However, learned Trial Court while acquitting the aforesaid two co-accused persons, Premdan @ Mintu and Suresh @ Ramlal, of the other offences charged with, convicted them only for offence under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced them to undergo 10 years’ Rigorous Imprisonment with fine and its default sentence under Section 6 of POCSO Act as the same being higher in degree than Section 376 of IPC in view of the provisions contained in Section 42 of POCSO Act.
4. Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Anand Patro, makes a solitary submission that learned Trial Court, having held all the three accused persons criminally liable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and also not having found any distinguishing feature in the form of separate roles played by each of them, should not have awarded 15 years of sentence to the appellant, Anand Patro, which is greater than 10 years’
The minimum punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was 10 years at the time of the offence, necessitating a modification of the appellant's sentence fro....
The court ruled that under Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the appellant should only be punished under the provision providing the greater penalty, affirming the conviction but modifying the sentence.
The court ruled that a defendant cannot receive separate sentences for identical acts under different statutes, affirming conviction for one count while reducing the life sentence to 10 years based o....
Rape of minor girl – When alleged acts or omissions constitute offence both under IPC and POCSO Act then, law which prescribes punishment of greater degree would have to be applied – Fields of operat....
Rape of girl child – Once a victim of rape, particularly, a child is found to be truthful in her deposition, said evidence is adequate to establish charge of commission of offence punishable under Se....
The minimum sentence for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act was 10 years at the time of the offence, which must be adhered to despite subsequent amendments increasing the minim....
(1) Any act of sexual assault or sexual harassment to children should be viewed very seriously.(2) Child needs extra protection – No leniency can be shown to an accused who has committed offences und....
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
