Keywords: POCSO, Probation of Offenders Act, High Court, IPC.
Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury upheld the conviction and sentence based on the consistent testimony provided by the victim girl. The Court found that the victim’s testimony, given to both the Magistrate and the trial court, remained consistent.
The Court dismissed the requests to grant probation instead of imprisonment to the appellant.
The appellant’s counsel emphasized that the appellant was a teenager at the time of the alleged incident and has since grown into a responsible individual who supports his family.
The lawyer further highlighted that the appellant had no prior criminal record, urging the Court not to subject him to the adverse consequences of a lifelong imprisonment.
However, the Court acknowledged that the Probation of Offenders Act does not apply to cases governed by the special law of the POCSO Act. In reaching this conclusion, the Court also relied on the precedents set by the Supreme Court – Superintendent, Central Excise v. Bahubali and State v. Ratan Lal Arora.
“Probation of offenders Act, 1958, therefore cannot be made applicable in this case in derogation of such special enactment of 2012,” the High Court held.
The case originated from an incident that occurred in 2014, where the appellant was accused of pawing at and touching the victim girl’s breast while she was walking with her mother on a footpath.
Upon this unwanted contact, the girl immediately screamed, and the boy was apprehended.
The police promptly arrived at the scene, leading to the registration of a case under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
The appellant’s counsel argued that the alleged touch could have been accidental since the incident took place in a crowded area.
However, the Court observed that after being caught, the appellant did not provide any indication suggesting that he did not have the intention to commit the offense. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the argument that the girl was not medically examined by a doctor.
“The Court stated that in the present facts and circumstances of the case under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, a medical examination by a doctor is not necessary,” the Court declared.
Considering these factors, along with others, the Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction and sentence.
Written By- Muskan Vyas, Legal Journalist Intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments