Bindhyachal Baitha vs State of Sikkim

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Sikk) 38

THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI
Bindhyachal Baitha – Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Jorgay Namka, Senior Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel).
For the Respondent: Mr. S. K. Chettri, Additional Public Prosecutor.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Appellant was convicted under Section 9 (m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, “POCSO Act”), for committing aggravated sexual assault on a child below twelve years, punishable under Section 10 of the same Act. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and fined Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, with a default clause of imprisonment. The Learned Trial Court observed that since Section 9 (m) of the POCSO Act covers the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter, the “IPC”), the Appellant need not be penalised twice for the same offence under different legislations. He was acquitted of the offence under Section 5 (m) of the POCSO Act for which penalty is provided under Section 6 of the same Act. Although charge was framed against the Appellant also under Section 376AB of the IPC, the Learned Trial Court failed to refer to or discuss this Section in the impugned Judgment.

(i) In the impugned Judgment, the Learned Trial Court in Paragraphs 15 and 17 concluded inter alia as follows;

“15. It would be seen that the evidence