RAHUL Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed seeking regular suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal in FIR No.121/2016 under Ss. 363/376D/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) registered at Police Station Najafgarh.

(2.) The applicant in the present case was convicted of offence under Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act vide judgment dtd. 31/1/2022. Subsequently, vide order of sentence dtd. 5/3/2022, the applicant was sentenced to 9 years simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000.00.

(3.) Counsel for the applicant makes a reference to Sec. 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (J.J. Act) to submit that the factum of prosecutrix being a minor has not been proved in accordance with the aforesaid Sec. . He also places reliance on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Yuvaprakash v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 846, in support of his submissions that School Leaving Certificate cannot be the document to determine age of the prosecutrix. Counsel for the applicant further submits that even in respect of the School Leaving Certificate (Exhibit PW-9/D), the prosecution has failed to produce the principal/officer of the School, who had issued the said document, as a witness in the present case.