Back
VIMAL K. VYAS
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
KARANBHAI @ DARGO LALJIBHAI UMEDBHAI PARMAR – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIMAL K. VYAS, J.
1. Though served with the notice issued by this Court, the respondent-accused has not remained present before this Court either in person or through an advocate and oppose the present appeal.
2. This enhancement appeal is being filed by the State under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.09.2023 passed by the learned Special (POCSO) Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, in Special (POCSO) Case No. 28 of 2021, whereby the learned Special Judge convicted the respondent-appellant (i.e. the original accused no. 1) for the offences punishable under Section 354D(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced him as under:
| Section under IPC | Imprisonment | Fine Amount | In default of payment of fine |
| 354D(1)(i) | Simple Imprisonment for six days | 10,000 | Simple Imprisonment for sixty days |
| 12 of POCSO Act | Simple Imprisonment for six days | 15,000 | Simple Imprisonment for seventy days |
3. The case of the prosecut
The appellate court upheld the trial court's discretion in sentencing, affirming that minimal sentences for stalking and sexual harassment did not warrant enhancement without strong justification.
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 Appellate Court should not interfere with the trial Court's sentencing unless the sentence is manifestly inadequate or perverse.
The minimum sentence under the POCSO Act must be imposed without discretion, ensuring adherence to the statutory provisions regarding child sexual offenses.
The Court found that the conviction for aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m) should be rectified to aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(m), reflecting the severity of the cr....
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....
Sexual harassment of girl child – Alleged expression [xxx I Love You] by accused alone would not constitute “sexual assault” as provided under Section 7 of POCSO Act.
The prosecution failed to establish credible evidence to support charges of stalking and harassment against the respondent, leading to the upheld acquittal.
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
