Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ
Sanjeet Sharma @ Sanjit Kumar Sharma @ Sanjit Sharma S/o Sanjay Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
IA No.5404 of 2024
This instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of sentence against the Judgment of conviction dated 12.10.2023 and order of sentence dated 13.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (POCSO) Act, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 02 of 2020 and Mahila and Child Protection P.S. Kiriburu Camp Noamundi Case No. 02 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376 & 366 of the IPC and under Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 21 years for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo S.I. for one year. No separate sentence was given under Section 376 & 366 of the IPC in view of the provisions of Section 42 of the POCSO Act.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that although the conviction is under Sections 376 & 366 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 6 of the POCSO Act but so far as the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is concerned, the same cannot be said to
The absence of conclusive proof of the victim's age and the consensual nature of the relationship justified the suspension of the sentence under the POCSO Act.
The assessment of age under the POCSO Act requires definitive documentation, and without it, establishing culpability is not achievable; consent plays a critical role in applying IPC provisions.
The court determined that the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the victim's age justified the suspension of the applicant's sentence.
Suspension of sentence granted in light of the applicant's prior relationship with the victim and backlog of appeals, balancing the gravity of the offences with the rights of the accused.
The court may suspend a sentence if doubts arise regarding the conviction, particularly concerning the proof of the victim's age and the validity of consent.
The court ruled that insufficient proof of the victim's age justified the suspension of the applicant's sentence under IPC and POCSO Act.
The court upheld the conviction under sexual assault laws despite challenges regarding the victim's age, emphasizing the credibility of the victim's testimony.
Where there are conflicting views on the age of the victim, the more favorable view for the accused should be adopted, leading to suspension of sentence.
Consent has no legal value in cases of minors under the POCSO Act; conclusive age evidence must come from valid and verified sources.
The court ruled the victim's consistent testimony sufficiently supports conviction under the POCSO Act, thus rejecting the suspension of sentence.
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
