Bombay High Court
Ravindra S/O. Mohan Koparge vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 1 April, 2025
Author: R.G. Avachat
Bench: R.G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:11292
APEAL-388-24+1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 388 OF 2024
AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1527 OF 2024
Ravindra Mohan Koparge
Age: 32 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Indiranagar, Tq. Shevgaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
2. XYZ ..RESPONDENTS
AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 389 OF 2024
State of Maharashtra ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
Ravindra Mohan Koparge ..RESPONDENT
....
Mr. D.S. Ingole, Advocate for appellant in APEAL/388/2024 and for
respondent in APEAL/389/2024 (appointed by Court)
Ms. U.M. Bhosle, A.P.P. for State
Mrs. R.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.2 (appointed by Court)
....
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 05th MARCH, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 01st APRIL, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.) :
1. Both these appeals arise from one ane the same judgment of
conviction and order of consequential sentence dated 23rd March, 2023
passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar (Special
Court under POCSO Act, 2012) (‘trial Court’) in Special Case No. 157 of
2022. Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2024 is preferred by the convict and the
1 / 19
APEAL-388-24+1.odt
another appeal (389 of 2024) is preferred by the State for enhancement of
sentence.
2. The order impugned herein read thus :-
“1. Accused Ravindra Mohan Koparge is hereby convicted of the
offence punishable u/s.3(b), 5(m)/4 and 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act and is sentenced to suffer R.I.
for 10 years and to pay fine Rs.5000/- (five thousand rupees
only) i/d to suffer S.I. for one year.
2. He is also convicted of the offence u/s 376(2)(i)(j), 376(A)(B) of
Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and
to pay fine Rs.5000/- (five thousand rupees only) i/d to suffer S.I.
for one year.
3. Both sentences shall run concurrently.”
3. According to learned A.P.P., the sentence for the offence proved
against the appellant warrants minimum twenty years of imprisonment and
which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean life till the end of
natural life, and therefore, State’s appeal.
4. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows :-
The appellant was residing in a room at Indira Nagar, Shevgaon.
The informant (PW – M), victim’s mother, was residing opposite to the room
of the appellant, but on the other side of the road. She would reside
alongwith her three minor daughters, her husband and mother-in-law as well.
The appellant had good relationship with the family members of the victim.
Many a time he was served with meal by the informant at her residence.
5. On 01st June, 2022 by 08:00 p.m., the victim (‘X’), a six years old
girl, was playing outside her house. The appellant called her to his room. He
2 / 19
APEAL-388-24+1.odt
removed her knicker and inserted his finger in her private part. The victim
came home crying. She related the incident to her family members, who
then took her to Police Station Shevgaon. The police referred her to Primary
Health Center, Shevgaon. She was then referred to Civil Hospital,
Ahmednagar. The victim was medically screened. The medical officer found
redness at the victim’s private part. The victim’s mother (informant) lodged
the F.I.R. (Exh.13).
6. A crime vide C.R. No. 353 of 2022 was registered. The appellant
came to be arrested. He too was medically screened. Statements of the
persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case were
recorded. The medical officer, during medical screening of the victim, had
obtained certain samples, such as vaginal swab, etc. Those were submitted
to R.F.S.L., Nashik. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was
filed against the appellant.
7. The trial Court framed the charge (Exh.5) for various offences viz.
under Sections 376(2)(i)(j), 376(A)(B) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
(‘I.P.C.’) and under Sections 3(b), 5(m), 7 and 22(ii) punishable under
Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 respectively of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012. The appellant pleaded not guilty. His defence was of
false implication.
8. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined six
witnesses and adduced in evidence certain documents. On appreciation of
3 / 19
APEAL-388-24+1.odt
the same, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
9. Since the incident took place on 01 st June, 2022, the minimum
sentence for the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault was
rigorous imprisonment for twenty years. Section 42 of the POCSO reads
thus :-
“Alternate punishment. – Where an act or omission constitutes an
offence punishable under this Act and also under Sections 166-A,
354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 354-D, 370, 370-A, 375, 376, 376-A, 376-C,
376-D, 376-E or Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for
the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such offence
shall be liable to punishment under this Act or under the Indian
Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree.”
10. The trial Court, therefore, ought to have convicted the appellant,
since according to it the offence was proved, for the sentence which was
severe one and not under both the sections viz. Section 376(2)(i)(j) of I.P.C.
and Section 8 of POCSO. The State has rightly preferred the appeal since
the trial Court has not imposed even minimum sentence provided for the said
offence, though it found the offence to have been proved. Be that as it may.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant (appointed by Court) would
submit that the victim’s statement, under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’), was recorded four days after the incident. The mother
of the victim lodged the F.I.R. two days after the incident. History to the
medical officer was given by the grand-mother of the victim, who has not
been examined. The medical examination rules out the penetrative sexual
4 / 19
APEAL-388-24+1.odt
assault. He took us through the evidence on record to ultimately urge for
acquittal of the appellant and in the alternative urged for converting the
sentence to a lesser offence viz. offence of sexual assault punishable under
Section 7 of the POCSO.
12. Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel appointed to represent the
victim would, on the other hand, submit it to be a heinous offence. Strong
reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Nawabuddin Vs. State
of Uttarakhand, (2022) 5 SCC 419. According to them, the appellant was
like a maternal uncle of the victim. He should not have been shown leniency.
The trial Court committed mistake in imposing less than the minimum
prescribed sentence. Both the learned counsel took us through the evidence
of the victim. They would submit that the victim had immediately related the
incident to her mother. The same reinforces the prosecution case. Our
attention was adverted to paragraph no. 6 of the judgment of the trial Court
which observes that the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. was duly explained.
According to learned counsel appointed to represent the victim, penetration
however slight, is sufficient to constitute the offence of rape. The victim was
six years of age. The offence thus become aggravated penetrative sexual
assault, being punishable with minimum sentence of twenty years. Sections
29 and 30 of the POCSO have also been referred to. It was submitted that
the appellant did not rebut the presumption. Both the learned counsel urged
for dismissal of the appeal of the convict and urged for allowing the State’s
appeal.
5 / 19
APEAL-388-24+1.odt
13. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the judgment
impugned herein. If we agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court,
the appellant need to be sentenced to minimum term of imprisonment of
twenty years. Before adverting to the evidence on record, let us remind
ourselves of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of
Nawabuddin (supra), which read as under :-
“14. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the POCSO Act has
been enacted keeping in mind Article 15 and 39 of the
Constitution of India. Article 15 of the Constitution, inter alia,
confers upon the State powers to make special provision for
children. Article 39, inter alia, provides that the State shall in
particular direct its policy towards securing that the tender age
of children are not abused and their childhood and youth are
protected against exploitation and they are given facilities to
develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and
dignity. To achieve the goal as per Article 15 and 39 of the
Constitution, the legislature has enacted the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
15. As noted in the Statement of objects and reasons, as per the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children, to which
India is a signatory to the treaty, the State Parties to undertake
all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to
prevent :
(a) the inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any
unlawful sexual activity;
(b) the exploitative use of children in prostitution or other
unlawful sexual practices; and
(c) the exploitative use of children in pornographic performances
and materials.
16. Article 19 of the Convention states the following:
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative,
administrative, social and educational measures to protect the
child from all form/s of physical or mental violence, injury or
abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or
exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of
parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the6 / 19
APEAL-388-24+1.odtcare of the child.
2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include
effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes
to provide necessary support for the child and for those who
have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of
prevention and for identification, reporting, referral,
investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child
maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for
judicial involvement.
The general comment No. 13 on the Convention specifically
dealt with the right of the child to freedom from all forms of
violence and it has observed that “no violence against children is
justifiable; all violence against children is preventable
17. Keeping in mind the aforesaid objects and to achieve what has
been provided Under Article 15 and 39 of the Constitution to
protect children from the offences of sexual assault, sexual
harassment, the POCSO Act, 2012 has been enacted. Any act of
sexual assault or sexual harassment to the children should be
viewed very seriously and all such offences of sexual assault,
sexual harassment on the children have to be dealt with in a
stringent manner and no leniency should be shown to a person
who has committed the offence under the POCSO Act. By
awarding a suitable punishment commensurate with the act of
sexual assault, sexual harassment, a message must be conveyed
to the society at large that, if anybody commits any offence
under the POCSO Act of sexual assault, sexual harassment or use
of children for pornographic purposes they shall be punished
suitably and no leniency shall be shown to them. Cases of sexual
assault or sexual harassment on the children are instances of
perverse lust for sex where even innocent children are not
spared in pursuit of such debased sexual pleasure.
18. Children are precious human resources of our country; they are
the country’s future. The hope of tomorrow rests on them. But
unfortunately, in our country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable
position. There are different modes of her exploitation, including
sexual assault and/or sexual abuse. In our view, exploitation of
children in such a manner is a crime against humanity and the
society. Therefore, the children and more particularly the girl
child deserve full protection and need greater care and
protection whether in the urban or rural areas.
7 / 19
APEAL-388-24+1.odt
19. As observed and held by this Court in the case of State of
Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745, children need
special care and protection and, in such cases, responsibility on
the shoulders of the Courts is more onerous so as to provide
proper legal protection to these children. In the case of Nipun
Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, it is observed by
this Court that a minor who is subjected to sexual abuse needs to
be protected even more than a major victim because a major
victim being an adult may still be able to withstand the social
ostracization and mental harassment meted out by society, but a
minor victim will find it difficult to do so. Most crimes against
minor victims are not even reported as very often, the
perpetrator of the crime is a member of the family of the victim
or a close friend. Therefore, the child needs extra protection.
Therefore, no leniency can be shown to an Accused who has
committed the offences under the POCSO Act, 2012 and
particularly when the same is proved by adequate evidence
before a court of law.
20. In the present case it is to be noted that the Accused was aged
approximately 65 years of age at the time of commission of
offence. He was a neighbour of the victim girl. He took
advantage of the absence of her parents, when her mother went
to fetch water and her father had gone to work. He is found to
have committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault (as
observed hereinabove) on a girl child aged four years, which
demonstrates the mental state or mindset of the Accused. As a
neighbour, in fact, it was the duty of the Accused to protect the
victim girl when alone rather than exploiting her innocence and
vulnerability. The victim was barely a four years girl. The
Accused-Appellant was the neighbour. The Accused instead of
showing fatherly love, affection and protection to the child
against the evils of the society, rather made her the victim of
lust. It is a case where trust has been betrayed and social values
are impaired. Therefore, the Accused as such does not deserve
any sympathy and/or any leniency.”
14. Now, let us advert to the evidence in the case.
PW 1 – X (victim) was six years old girl. The record indicates that
the trial Court did not put her certain questions so as to ascertain whether
8 / 19
APEAL-388-24+1.odt
she was competent to depose. She was examined in question-answer form.
Her answers to the questions indicate she understood the questions and
gave rational answers. She testified that she was resident of Shevgaon.
She would attend Urdu school. She knew the appellant. The appellant
would reside in front of her house. She further testified that when she was
playing in front of her house, the appellant took her to his room. He removed
her underwear, put his finger at her private part. The appellant said her not
to tell anybody, else he will cut her head. She came home and told her
mother and grand-parents what the appellant did with her. According to her,
she was taken to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar. She identified the appellant.
15. During her cross-examination, it has come on record that she was
a student of first standard. She gave the names of her teacher and friends
as well. She testified that the appellant used to visit her house as the
appellant was a good person. Her family members would provide him meal
many a time. The victim, however remained firm about what the appellant
did with her. While she was called upon to identify the appellant, the trial
Court recorded as follows :-
“After recording above evidence, accused was shown to victim,
she identify accused but by seeing victim she afraid and concealed
at back side of prosecutor.”
Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the victim specially
adverted our attention to this note and submitted that the victim was scared
of the appellant, and therefore, she took refuge behind the prosecutor, in-
9 / 19
APEAL-388-24+1.odt
charge of the case. According to them, the same speaks in volumes of the
fear of the appellant instituted in the victim’s mind due to the said act.
16. PW 2 – M, mother of the victim testified that the victim was born
on 05th November, 2016. She further testified that on 01 st June, 2022 by
08:00 p.m. the victim returned to the home after playing outside. The victim
told her about pain in her vagina. On further enquiry, she told her the
appellant to have inserted his finger in her private part. Thereafter she took
the victim to Shevgaon Police Station. The police referred her to Sub-
Hospital, Shevgaon. The doctor there referred her to Civil Hospital,
Ahmednagar. Her statement was recorded. She stated therein what was
told to her by the victim. She then signed her statement. According to her,
the police seized the clothes of the victim. A panchanama to that effect was
drawn (Exh.26).
During her cross-examination, it was suggested to her that the
appellant resides alone. This suggestion was denied. According to her,
appellant’s two sisters would reside with him. The informant admitted the
house wherein the appellant would reside was his own. She, however
denied that a false case has been lodged against him with a view to grab his
house. She admitted that the vicinity wherein she was residing is mostly
populated by Muslim community. There were only 2-3 houses of the persons
belonging to Hindu community. She further denied that with a view to drive
out the people of Hindu community from that area, a false report was lodged.
10 / 19
APEAL-388-24+1.odt
17. PW 3 – Ambadas is a witness, who tendered in evidence an entry
relating to the birth of the victim made in the birth register maintained by
Municipality, Pathardi. It is at Exhibit 17.
18. PW 4 – Gahininath was a Medical Officer. He medically screened
the victim on 02nd June, 2022 by 04:50 a.m. According to him, the grand-
mother of the victim gave the history that the victim was unable to sit and
when enquired, the victim told the appellant to have inserted his finger in her
anus and vagina as well. After visiting the local hospital, they came to Civil
Hospital, Ahmednagar. It was further reported to the medical officer that the
incident took place three days back. PW 4 further testified that on local
examination he found hymen was intact. There was no local injury. Redness
was found at both vaginal walls. He advised blood examination and UHB
sonography. Vaginal and hymen swab was taken. The patient was admitted
for sonography and pediatric opinion. The medical examination report issued
by him is at Exhibit 21 and the medical certificate is at Exhibit 22. According
to him, sexual assault could not be ruled out. Redness at vaginal wall was
possible by insertion of finger.
During his cross-examination he testified that the injuries noticed
at the private part of the victim may be possible by etching. The said injury
may be possible by infection. He, however clarified that there is no urine
infection. He further testified that in case of constipation there is difficulty in
passing stool.
11 / 19
APEAL-388-24+1.odt
19. Learned counsel representing the victim would submit that there
was no question of bacterial infection. In such a case etching could occur,
and therefore, the defence that redness had occurred due to etching has
been ruled out.
20. PW 5 – Suresh is a witness to the panchanama relating to the
seizure of clothes. His evidence does not further the prosecution case. PW
6 – Ashish is the police officer, who did the investigation of the crime. His
evidence too is of little consequence. What he deposed to is as to the steps
he took during investigation for collection of evidence.
21. Let us now appreciate the evidence on record.
The F.I.R. (Exh.30) was lodged by the mother of the victim. She
testified that on 01st June, 2022 by 08:00 p.m. her parents and two daughters
were at her home. They were taking dinner. The victim was her elder
daughter. The victim came to her and told that she experienced pains at her
private part (in vagina). When she (mother) enquired with the victim, she told
that the appellant inserted his finger in her vagina. She (mother), therefore,
took the victim to Shevgaon Police Station. The police referred them to Sub-
Hospital, Shevgaon. The doctor there examined the victim and referred her
to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar. Her statement was recorded by Shevgaon
Police while she was at the hospital.
During her cross-examination, she denied to have lodged a false
report with a view to grab the appellant’s house. It was also suggested that
12 / 19
APEAL-388-24+1.odt
the area at which the victim was residing was dominated by muslim
population. She denied that the appellant being Hindu and with a view to
drive him out of that locality, the F.I.R. was lodged. There is nothing further
to suggest she had an axe to grind against the appellant. During her cross-
examination it has been brought on record that the appellant would be on the
visiting terms with the family of the victim. The victim’s parents would serve
him meal occasionally. Then rest of the questions are in the nature of denial.
22. The material evidence of the victim reads thus :-
“Night hours. He took me to his house. He removed my underwear. He
put finger of his hand at place of Urine (Vagina), he was saying that do
not tell to anybody else he will cut the head. I went to the house and
told to my mother and grandfather and grandmother. I was taken to
Civil Hospital Ahmednagar, I was also taken to Shevgaon Hospital.”
23. PW 3 – Ambadas is a witness, who tendered in evidence an entry
in the birth register (Exh.17). There is no dispute that the victim was six
years of age at the relevant time.
24. The material evidence is that of PW 4 – Gahininath, Medical
Officer. He deposed that on 02nd June, 2022 he examined the victim. The
victim’s grand-mother gave history. He issued MLC report. On local
examination he found hymen was intact and there was no local injury.
Redness was noticed at both the vaginal walls. He advised blood
examination and UHB sonography. The vaginal and hymen swabs were
taken. The medical examination report is at Exhibit 22. According to the
13 / 19
APEAL-388-24+1.odt
medical officer, although the hymen was intact, sexual assault was not ruled
out. In his opinion, redness of vaginal walls may be possible if finger is
inserted in it.
In his cross-examination he admitted that such redness may be
developed by etching or by infection. According to him, it is not a case of
urine infection. Learned counsel for the victim would submit unless there
was bacterial infection, there was no reason for the victim to etch at her
private part.
25. Aforesaid is the material witness in the case. The question is
whether the offence of aggravated sexual assault is made out. The F.I.R.
(Exh.30) was lodged by the mother of the victim. According to her, the victim
had related her the appellant to have inserted his finger in her vagina. The
victim, however testified that the appellant had placed his finger at her private
part. The victim’s police statement was not recorded immediately. It was
only on 03rd June i.e. two days after the alleged incident, her statement under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. A glance at her statement would
indicate that first eleven questions were general. Question Nos. 12 and 13
with the answers thereof are as under :-
iz-dz-12 & vkxs vki D;k crkuk pkgrs gks\
mRrj & eSa >kM ds uhps [ksy jgh Fkh- milus eq>s mlds ?kjesa cqyk;k- mlus
esjh pM~Mh fudkyh vkSj <aqxuesa maxyh Mkyh- vkSj oks cksyk dh
fdlhdks crk;k rks eqaMh dkVds ?kjesa j[k nqaxk-
iz-dz-13 & mlds ckn D;k gqvk\
mRrj & eSa ?kj xbZ vkSj esjh eEeh dks crk;k
14 / 19
APEAL-388-24+1.odt
26. The mother of the victim was present while the victim’s statement
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. We do not wish to say
anything, but after reading reply to Question No.13, it appears that the victim
did not wish to say anything more. It appears that up till Question No.13, no
case as propounded in the F.I.R. was there. Question No.14 appears to
have been put to the victim. The same alongwith its answer is as under :-
iz-dz-14 & vkidks vkSj D;k crkuk gS\
mRrj & ugha- mlus eq>s isVis csyuls ekjk- mlus rhu ckj maxyh Mkyh Fkh-
fi<sls ,d ckj vkSj vkxsls nks ckj Mkyh Fkh-
27. We are conscious of the fact that the statement under Section 164
of the Cr.P.C. is not the substantive piece of evidence. The offence is
serious one. It invites severe punishment of not less than twenty years. The
State has preferred appeal for enhancement of sentence. True, if the
offence is proved, it warrants minimum twenty years of imprisonment. The
trial Court held the offence to have been proved. It has, however
inadvertently sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for ten years.
Needless to mention, serious is the offence, clinching should be the
evidence.
28. Marathi version of the victim’s evidence reads thus :-
iz'u & rh osG dks.krh gksrh\
mRrj & jk=hph gksrh] rks eyk R;kps ?kjh ?ksmu xsyk- R;kus ek>h pM~Mh
dk<yh R;kus R;kps cksV ek>s lw dj.;kps tkxsoj Vkdys- rks eyk
Eg.kkyk dh] rsjs nknkdks cksyk rks eqa<h dkV Mkyqaxk o R;kuarj
R;kus eyk lksMwu fnys o R;kuarj eh ?kjh vkys o nknk nknhyk o
vkEehyk lkafxrys o eyk cMs nok[kkU;kr ?ksmu xsys- eyk
‘ksoxkops nok[kkU;kr usys gksrs-
15 / 19
APEAL-388-24+1.odt
29. From the testimony of the victim it is just difficult for us to infer the
appellant to have inserted his finger in her private part. More so, when the
medical evidence does not reinforce the same. True, the medical officer,
who had medically screened the victim testified that redness at the vaginal
walls could be possible by insertion of finger. In our view, this is his
improved version over the medical examination report of the victim issued by
him immediately after the medical examination. The said report finds place
at Exhibit 21. The report is in requisite format. Item No.VII of Clause 15-A
pertains to history. It was given by grand-mother of the victim. The history
given was as under :-
is’kaV dks ugkrs Vkbe cSB.kk ugh vk jgk Fkk- blfy;s eSus iqNk rks mlus crk;k
dh jO;k us iWaV fudkyk vkSj /kedk;k- yMdh dks fi’kkc vkSj ‘kh djus dks
rdfyQ gks jgh Fkh blfy, yksdy MkWDVj dks fn[kk;k rks mUgksus ljdkjh
gkWLihVy esa fn[kkus dks crk;k-
30. Then there is clause 15-F. It speaks of opinion regarding
penetration. The said clause is blank. The said clause is under the
signature of PW 4 – Gahininath. No active bleeding was noticed nor was
there sign of inflammation. For better appreciation, we reproduce the said
column as under :-
PENETRATION Emission of Semen
Orifice of By Penis By Body part of self or By Object Yes No Don't Know
Victim assailant or third party
(finger, tongue or any other)
Genitalia
(Vagina
and/or
urethra)
Anus
Mouth
16 / 19
APEAL-388-24+1.odt
31. Had the appellant inserted finger in vagina of victim, there would
have been local injury, since the victim was just six years of age. The
Medical Officer would have noted the same in the aforesaid column.
Learned counsel representing the victim was right in submitting that
penetration however small, constitutes the offence. In our view, however
considering the age of the victim, had there been insertion of finger, there
would have been local injury in the vagina of the victim. The victim, however
could not be disbelieved, in its entirety. She has no reason to name the
appellant. Considering her age, she could not have described the incident.
Suffice it to say, her evidence indicates that the appellant put his hand at her
private part. Redness of walls of hymen could be the result of an attempt to
penetrate the finger. In our view, therefore, the offence proved against the
appellant is of attempt to commit aggravated sexual assault punishable
under Section 18 of the POCSO. The same reads thus :-
“18. Punishment for attempt to commit an offence. – Whoever
attempts to commit any offence punishable under this Act or to cause
such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt, does any act
towards the commission of the offence, shall be punished with
imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term
which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the
case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for
that offence or with fine or with both.”
The aforesaid phraseology gives the Court discretion in
sentencing the appellant. True, considering the nature of offence and
observation in the authority relied on by learned counsel for the victim, such
acts must be dealt with iron hand.
17 / 19
APEAL-388-24+1.odt
32. The appellant is a labour. He is behind the bars since the date of
his arrest. In our view, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years
would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. In
the result we proceed to dispose of both the appeals in terms of following
order :-
ORDER
(I) Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2024 is partly allowed.
(II) Impugned judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2023
passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Ahmednagar (Special Court under POCSO Act, 2012) in
Special Case No. 157 of 2022 convicting the appellant for
the offence punishable under Sections 3(b), 5(m)/4 and 6 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
under Sections 376(2)(i)(j), 376(A)(B) of the Indian Penal
Code, is hereby set aside. He stands acquitted thereof.
Instead, the appellant is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years
and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in
default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten days.
(III) Criminal Appeal No.389 of 2024 is dismissed.
(IV) In view of disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2024,
nothing survives in Criminal Application No. 1527 of 2024.
Same stands disposed of accordingly.
18 / 19
APEAL-388-24+1.odt
(V) Fees of Mr.D.S. Ingole, learned counsel appointed to
represent the appellant is quantified to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand)
(VI) Fees of Mrs. R.S. Kulkarni, learned counsel appointed to
Respondent No.2 – victim is quantified to Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand). She expressed her desire to
pay her fees to the victim.
(VII) Fees of the appointed counsel be paid by High Court Legal
Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad, which shall do the
needful to pay the fees of Mrs. Kulkarni, learned counsel to
the victim.
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ) ( R.G. AVACHAT, J. )
SSD
19 / 19
[ad_1]
Source link