Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ravindra Nath Mishra-II, J.
Pintu - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1605 of 2016
Decided On : 08-06-2017
Penetration - Sexual Offences - 377 I.P.C., 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 377 I.P.C., Section 6 of Act of 2012 - Summary: The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 377 I.P.C. and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, emphasizing the requirement of penetration to constitute the offence. The court found that while penetration was not proved, an attempt to cause penetration was sufficiently proved, leading to the conviction and sentencing of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-accused was convicted and sentenced under Section 377 I.P.C. and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for committing unnatural intercourse with a 7-year-old victim. The victim's statement indicated an attempt to penetrate, but no external injury was found to prove penetration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while penetration was not proved, an attempt to cause penetration was sufficiently proved, leading to the conviction and sentencing of the accused.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant-accused had committed the offence of unnatural intercourse under Section 377 I.P.C. and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of penetration to constitute the offence under Section 377 I.P.C. and Section 6 of the Act of 2012, and found that while penetration was not proved, an attempt to cause penetration was sufficiently proved, leading to the conviction and sentencing of the accused.
Final Decision: The judgment under appeal was modified, and the appellant-accused was convicted and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment and fine under Section 377 I.P.C. and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The judgment of the Trial Court regarding payment of compensation to the complainant was maintained.
Ravindra Nath Mishra-II, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by appellant-accused Pintu son of Lalji, aged 23 years, resident of Village Chiraiya, Police Station Than Gaon, District Sitapur against judgment and order dated 27.05.2016 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 09, Sitapur, whereby appellant-accused has been convicted and sentences under Section 377 I.P.C. to rigorous imprisonment of 08 years together with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and also under Section 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years together with fine to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and in default appellant-accused has also been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one year each. The Court has also directed that both the sentence shall run concurrently.
2. Brief facts giving rise to his criminal appeal are that the complainant-Chhanga son of Bhairo Lodh, Resident of Village Chiraiya, Police Station Than Gaon, District Sitapur lodged an F.I.R. on 11.08.2013 in Police Station Than Gaon, District Sitapur that at about 2.30 p.m. when his son (shall be mentioned as “victim” to maintain secrecy) aged 07 years was playing in front of his house, appellant-accused Pintu came and took his son with him in side Bungalow of Payare Lodh and after gagging him with cloths, the appellant-accused committed unnatural intercourse with the victim. Victim started weeping and came back to his house where he narrated the whole story to the complainant and his wife. On written complaint (Exhibit Ka-1) an F.I.R. under 377 I.P.C. and Section 3 Ka/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2012”) was registered.
3. Investigation was handed over to Sub-Inspector Bhawani Shanker Singh, who visited place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Exhibit Ka-5). During investigation he recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter having found sufficient evidence against the appellant-accused, charge-sheet (Exhibit Ka-6) was filed in the Court.
4. On the basis of material filed along with charge sheet charges under Section 377 I.P.C. and Section 6 of Act of 2012 were framed against appellant-accused from which he denied and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to substantiate the charges framed against appellant-accused prosecution examined PW-1 complainant Chhanga Lal, PW-2 the victim, PW-3 Dr. Akhilesh Kumar, PW-4 Constable Himanshu Chaudhary and PW-5 Bhawani Shanker Singh.
6. At the conclusion of prosecution evidence accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has stated his false prosecution, however no evidence was adduced by the appellant-accused.
7. After hearing argument of both the parties, Trial Court found the charges under Section 377 I.P.C. and Section 6 of Act of 2012 proved and, therefore, appellant-accused was convicted and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment of 08 years together with fine to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 377 I.P.C. and with rigorous imprisonment of 10 years together with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 6 of Act of 2012. In default of payment of fine, the Court has also directed the appellant-accused to undergo imprisonment of one year each for both the offences additionally. Both the offences have been directed to run concurrently. The Court has also directed compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the complainant Chhanga Lal, out of above amount of fine deposited by appellant-accused.
8. Appellant-accused is in Jail undergoing the sentence awarded by lower Court, however, he is represented through Amicus Curiae Sri Sunder Lal.
9. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for appellant-accused and learned A.G.A.
10. Learned Counsel for the appellant-accused has argued that the lower Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record. The doctor, who has medically examined the victim just after the occurrence has stated that no mark of external injury was found
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
