Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.
Ankit & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRR-121-2022
Decided On : 02-03-2022
Conviction - Section 377 IPC and Section 10 POCSO Act - [SODOMY] - [CRIMINAL LAW] - [IPC 377, POCSO 10]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were convicted for the commission of offences under Section 377 of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act for committing sodomy and unnatural act of carnal intercourse with an 8-year-old child. The victim's father filed a complaint stating that the petitioners had committed the acts against his son. The petitioners were apprehended, and a final report was presented before the Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The Principal Magistrate found the prosecution successful in establishing the guilt of the petitioners and convicted them. The appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the Fast Track Court, leading to the present revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the prosecution successful in establishing the guilt of the petitioners for the offences under Section 377 of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The Court rejected the argument that the medical examination did not show any external injuries or marks on the victim, emphasizing that absence of injury does not discredit the victim's testimony. The Court also dismissed the plea for leniency, emphasizing the need to protect children from sexual assault and harassment.
Issues: The issues involved the validity and legality of the judgment passed by the Courts below, the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the petitioners, and the plea for leniency.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the absence of injury does not discredit the victim's testimony, especially considering the victim's young age and the nature of the assault. The Court also emphasized the need to protect children from sexual assault and harassment, rejecting the plea for leniency.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition, finding no merits in the submissions advanced by the petitioners.
ORDER
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. - The challenge in the instant revision petition is to the judgment dated 02.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonepat in CRA.35/2021 as well as to the judgment of conviction dated 09.03.2021 and the order of sentence dated 12.03.2021 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sonepat whereby the petitioners have been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC) and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POCSO Act'). Vide order of sentence dated 12.03.2021, the following sentence was imposed upon the petitioners that were to run concurrently :-
Name | Under Section | Imprisonment |
1. Ankit, son of Sh. Manoj, resident of village khandrai, Gohana City, Sonepat, | Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 | Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of |
fine, he shall be further imprisoned for 30 days of simple imprisonment | ||
1. Ankit, son of Sh. Manoj, resident of village khandrai, Gohana City, Sonepat, | Section 377 ofIPC | Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs.5OO/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall be further imprisoned for 15 days of simple imprisonment. |
2. Mohan son of Sh. Moti Ram, resident of village Khandrai, Gohana City, Sonipat, | Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 | Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall be further imprisoned for 30 days of simple imprisonment |
2. Mohan son of Sh. Moti Ram, resident of village Khandrai, Gohana City, Sonipat, | Section 377 of IPC | Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs.5OO/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall be further imprisoned for 15 days of simple imprisonment. |
3. Deepak, son of Sh. Balraj, resident of village Khandrai, Gohana City, Sonipat. | Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 | Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall be further imprisoned for 30 days of simple imprisonment |
3. Deepak, son of Sh. Balraj, resident of village Khandrai, Gohana City, Sonipat. | Section 377 of IPC | Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs.5OO/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall be further imprisoned for 15 days of simple imprisonment. |
2. The brief facts of the case as they emerge are that the petitioners (Children in conflict with law and here-in-after referred to as 'CCL') were apprehend on the basis of a complaint submitted by one Vinod Kumar stating that on 15.09.2018 his son Lakshay, aged 08 years had gone to the Primary School, Village Khandrai, at around 6:00 p.m. where Ankit son of Manoj, Mohan son of Moti Ram and Deepak son of Balraj committed Sodomy and unnatural act of carnal intercourse with his son.
3. Pursuant to the said statement, FIR was registered, investigation was conducted and the accused-CCL's Ankit, Mohan and Deepak were apprehended. Upon completion of investigation, a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the Juvenile Justice Board, Sonepat. No dispute has been raised in so far as juvenility of CCL's are concerned.
4. Upon compliance of the provisions under Section 307 Cr.P.C. and finding a prima facie case, notice of accusation under Section 377 of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act was served upon the CCL's to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. After consideration of the evidence led by the respective parties and upon its careful examination alongwith the arguments advanced by learned parties, the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sonepat came to a conclusion that the prosecution had been able to successfully establish the guilt of CCL's on the strength of the evidence produced and held the CCL's Ankit, Mohan and Deepak, guilty for commission of offences und
The necessity of proving penetration or manipulation causing penetration for charges under the POCSO Act was emphasized, leading to a conviction for attempted offences.
The court affirms that minor victims' testimonies can be solely relied upon in sexual offence cases, provided they are credible, and clarifies that penetration into external genitalia suffices to con....
The court affirmed the conviction under the POCSO Act while ruling that the appellant cannot be punished under both the POCSO Act and IPC for the same act, modifying the sentence accordingly.
Non-consensual sexual acts against minors and adults, and acts of bestiality continue to be governed by Section 377 of IPC, despite the reading down of the section for consensual sexual acts of adult....
The victim's testimony in sexual assault cases is vital and can suffice for conviction without corroboration, provided it is credible.
The requirement of proving penetration for conviction under Section 3 of the POCSO Act and the interpretation of the legal provisions related to sexual assault.
The judgment established the distinction between rape and sexual assault, emphasizing the requirement of penetration for the former, and the physical contact without penetration for the latter under ....
The reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony and the admissibility of res gestae evidence were central to the court's decision.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the POCSO Act, specifically Section 7 read with Section 8, in determining the guilt of the ....
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
