SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(All) 168

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH CHAND, J.
Mohit - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 7466 of 2017
Decided On : 04-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jagdish Prasad Mishra, Mahendra Ram Maurya.
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate.

Headnote:

POCSO Act - Conviction under Section 5/6 - Section 3, 4, 5, 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 - The court acquitted the appellant from the offence under Section 377 I.P.C but convicted him for the offence under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The court discussed the provisions of Section 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and their definitions and punishments. The court analyzed the testimonies of witnesses and the medical evidence, highlighting the need for corroboration and competency of child witnesses. The court ultimately set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012, giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was acquitted from the offence under Section 377 I.P.C but convicted for the offence under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 based on the testimony of a child witness. The appellant appealed against the conviction, arguing that the testimony was not corroborated and the conviction was against the weight of the evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the testimony of the child witness was not sufficiently corroborated and did not inspire confidence. It also highlighted the lack of medical evidence to support the testimony. The court concluded that the conviction and sentence under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 were based on a single testimony and suffered from infirmity, ultimately setting aside the conviction and allowing the appeal.

Issues: Competency of child witness, corroboration of testimony, admissibility of hearsay evidence, reliance on medical evidence

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for corroboration of testimony, especially in cases involving child witnesses. It also highlighted the importance of medical evidence and the competency of witnesses. The court applied the principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused when two reasonable views are possible.

Final Decision: The criminal appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and the sentence under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 were set aside. The appellant was ordered to be released from jail, provided the bail bonds were furnished.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-convict Mohit against the judgment dated 09.11.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Muzaffarnagar in Special Sessions Trial No. 123/9 of 2017 (State Vs. Mohit) arising out of Case Crime No.238 of 2017 under Sections 377 I.P.C. And 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Kakrauli, District Muzaffarnagar whereby the learned trial court while acquitting the appellant for the offence under Section 377 of I.P.C, convicted him for the offence under Section 5/6 POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced appellant Mohit with rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and also ordered to undergo further imprisonment of two years in default of payment of fine.

2. The facts giving rise to this criminal appeal in brief are that the informant Dharmendra, son of Asharfi Lal, resident of village Bhuvapur, P.S. Kakrauli, District Muzaffarnagar moved a written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that on 20.04.2017 at 7:30 of evening his son Vasu 4 years old was sitting along-with other male and female kids in the buggi of Jaipal of his village. Jaipal asked all the children to get down from the buggi on reaching village, thereafter, Mohit 19 years of age of his village made attempt to lure the children giving gratification of Rs. 10. Other children went to their house but he lured to his son Vasu and took him near by the Government School of the village. When his son did not return to his house, all the family members made hectic search of him and found his child Vasu in unconscious condition near by the Government School and Mohit fled away from the place of occurrence having seeing them. The cloth of his son were blood stained, he has utter belief that Mohit had committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature to his child. He also made the complaint of the same to the family members of Mohit who also abused and did marpeet with him.

3. On this written information crime no. 238 of 2017 was registered under Section 377 I.P.C 3(a), 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 against Mohit with the Police Station Kakrauli, District Muzaffarnagar.

4. The I.O. after concluding the investigation filed charge sheet against the accused Mohit and the concerned court took cognizance on the same. The trial court framed the charge against the accused Mohit under sections 377 I.P.C. And under Section 3(a)/4 of POCSO Act, and the charge was read over and explained to the accused which was denied by him and claimed for trial.

5. On behalf of prosecution to prove the charge against the accused Mohit in documentary evidence filed the written information Exhibit Ka-1, medico legal examination report of victim Exhibit Ka-2, Supplementary report Exhibit Ka-3, chick F.I.R paper no. 4a/1 to 4a/3, site plan of the place of occurrence paper no. 7a and the charge sheet paper no. 3a/1 to 3a/4.

6. On behalf of prosecution in oral evidence examined P.W-1 Dharmendra, P.W-2 Pramita, P.W-3 Vasu, P.W-4 Dr. Mashkoor.

7. The statement of accused Mohit under section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded in which he denied the incriminating circumstances in the evidence against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. On behalf of accused no defence evidence was adduced.

8. The learned trial court after hearing the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties passed judgement on 09.11.2017 acquitting accused Mohit from the offence under Section 377 I.P.C; but held him guilty for the offence under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of payment of fine the convict Mohit was also directed to undergo an additional rigorous imprisonment for two years.

9. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-convict Mohit on the ground

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top