Minimum sentencing provisions of the POCSO Act apply based on the date of offence, following statutory interpretation that mandates minimum terms without judicial discretion.

On Board (15.04.2024) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the appellant-accused is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court / Special Judge (POCSO, 2012), Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in Special Sessions Trial No. 879/2015 by which appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

• Conviction Sentence Under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of 2,000/-; in ₹ default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

• Under Section 342 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of ₹ 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

• Under Section 506 Part II of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of ₹ 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

• Under Section 323 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of ₹ 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

• All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that appellant herein is the father of the minor victim (PW-2), aged about 12 years at the time of offence. The appellant committed repeated sexual intercourse with the minor victim against her wishes from 12.02.2015 to 20.02.2015 and also threatened her to kill if she discloses the said incident to anyone. However, the said incident was informed by the victim to her mother (PW-3), due to which the appellant also quarrelled with the victim and PW- 3 and also threatened to kill both of them. Thereafter, PW-3 along with victim and her other children went to her parental home at Bilaspur where the appellant also came and quarrelled with them. On 04.05.2015, without informing anyone the minor victim went to the Mahila Thana, Raipur to register a complaint against the appellant, but the police asked her to come along with her mother. When the victim was going to get a train to Bilaspur at Raipur railway station she mistakenly caught a different train which was going to Mumbai and in the said train she met with Deepak (PW-7) and Yogesh (not examined) and told them that she has sat in the wrong train. Deepak (PW-7) took the victim to his house where she stayed for 4 to 5 days and, thereafter, Jija Bai (not examined), mother of Deepak (PW-7), took her to report the matter at Police Station, Sakinaka Mumbai from where the matter was informed to the Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur, pursuant to which FIR was registered vide Ex.P/10. Nazari Naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/8. As per property seizure memo (Ex.P/7) and Article – A/C i.e. the copy of birth certificate of the minor vicitim herein, age of the victim was about 12 years and the same is supported by the mother of the victim (PW-3). Minor victim was medically examined by Dr. Nisha Thakur (PW-1) and medical report was prepared vide Exs.P/1 to P/3. In the said medical reports of the minor victim no definite opinion has been given by Dr. Nisha Thakur (PW-1) with regard to sexual intercourse and slides were sent for chemical analysis for definite opinion. As per FSL report (Ex.P/17) human sperm was not found on Articles A1 to A5. Appellant was found to be competent in sexual intercourse vide Ex.P/9 proved by Dr. Samtosh Bhandari (PW-5).

3. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. Statement o