IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma, Sureshwar Thakur, JJ.
Sushil Kumar and another - Appellants
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 246 of 2014
Decided on : 30.07.2015
Sexual Offences - Protection of Children - Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, Section 376 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, Section 3(1)(XII) of SCST Act, 1989
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix, an 11-year-old girl, was sexually assaulted by the accused Anil Kumar and Sushil Kumar. The incidents occurred at the shop of Anil Kumar and a place under the bridge. The prosecutrix reported the incidents to her family, leading to the filing of an FIR and medical examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of offences under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 506 of IPC. However, the court set aside the conviction under Section 3(1)(XII) of SCST Act, 1989.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sexual assault of the prosecutrix, the credibility of her testimony, and the applicability of the SCST Act, 1989 to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the conviction based on the natural and credible testimony of the prosecutrix and medical evidence. However, it set aside the conviction under the SCST Act, 1989 due to the lack of evidence that the assault was committed on the basis of the prosecutrix's caste.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, upholding the convictions under the POCSO Act, 2012 and IPC, but setting aside the conviction under the SCST Act, 1989.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
This appeal is instituted against the judgment/order, dated 12.06.2014, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Una, H.P. in SCST Case No. 3VII/13, whereby the appellants-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for the sake of convenience), who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 376 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(XII)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years each with a fine of Rs.10,000/each for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act No. 32 of 2012 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2000/each for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further one month each. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(XII) of the SCST Act, 1989 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. All these sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the prosecutrix belongs to village Sanghanai, Police Station, Gagret, District Una, H.P. She was 11 years old and studying in 4th class in Government Primary School at Sanghnai. She used to go to School on foot. She used to leave her house for School at about 7 a.m. and reach School at about 8 a.m. Accused Anil Kumar @ Girish Kumar was running a shop. He used to sell cold drinks, kurkare and biscuits etc. His shop was situated between the residence and School of the prosecutrix. He used to give biscuits, cold drinks etc. to the victim to allure her. He used to remove the clothes of the prosecutrix to make her hear songs and see obscene film clippings on his mobile phone. He also used to make her lie on the bench and thereafter used to commit penetrative sexual assault on her. He used to do all these acts after pulling down the shutter of his shop. Accused Sushil Kumar also used to come to the shop of accused Anil Kumar @ Girish and give eatables to the prosecutrix. He used to take her to a place under the bridge (pulli) and thereafter, used to have penetrative sexual intercourse with her by saying that he loves her. After doing sexual acts, they used to sent her back to her place. They also told the prosecutrix not to tell about all this and threatened her with dire consequences in case she told about it to anyone. On 31.05.2013, the prosecutrix was late from School. At that time, her aunt Pushpa Devi (PW3) was present in the house, who inquired from her that why she was late, upon which she told that she had come from the path coming from bridge side and then she went to her room and slept. Accused Sushil Kumar came to the house of victim on 02.06.2013 and again on 03.06.2013. When the accused left the house, the prosecutrix told Pushpa Devi (PW3) that the person who had come to their house, i.e., accused Sushil Kumar had been doing wrongful activities with her. Thereafter, PW3 went to School to inquire about it from the School teacher of the victim, who denied any such thing. She also narrated the incident to Anita Kumari (PW1). The matter was reported to the Head Teacher of the School. The FIR was registered on 10.06.2013 vide Ex. PW1/A. The prosecutrix was medically examined. Police visited the spot, prepared the site plan. The statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. on 12.06.2013. The accused were also got medically examined from doctor. The investigation was completed and the challan was put u
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.