NANHE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for regular suspension of sentence till the final disposal of the appeal which has assailed the judgment of conviction dtd. 24/7/2019, and order on sentence dtd. 26/7/2019 in proceedings related to FIR No.142 of 2013 P.S. Welcome under Ss. 363, 366, 376, IPC and Sec. 6 of POCSO. As per the order on sentence the learned Trial Court awarded RI for a period of 10 years for offense punishable under Sec. 6 POCSO and a fine of Rs.10,000.00 with (SI for 3 months in default of payment of fine). The appellant has undergone custody for a period of about 5 years, 3 months and as per the Nominal Roll, there are no previous involvements and the jail conduct has been satisfactory. The appellant has not sought any interim bail or parole throughout the period of incarceration.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as per the case of the prosecution, on 18/6/2012, the parents of the prosecutrix had gone to the hospital for treatment and when they returned they found their daughter missing. After 10 months of the missing complaint being filed, an FIR was registered under Sec. 363 IPC. However, on 10/7/2013, the victim was found at the appellant 's house and statement was recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. The victim clearly stated that they were in a romantic relationship and on 18/6/2012, she had gone to Kashipur, along with the appellant and performed the nikah ceremony and now she had a child of about four months. She had stated that she went with her consent and wanted to live with the appellant. However, in these circumstances Sec. 366/376 IPC and Sec. 6 POCSO were added to the FIR.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the victim was 14 years old at the time she eloped with the appellant she was now married and had a child and as per Muslim Law, a Muslim girl can get married after attaining the age of puberty. Further, the victim was found missing on 18/6/2012, but had later approached the Hon 'ble High Court of Allahabad for seeking protection from the parents, which petition was disposed of vide order dtd. 10/5/2013. The parents had approached the police after 10 months clearly showing that the parents of the victim knew the whereabouts of the victim and then made a complaint in order to pressurize her and the appellant. It was further contended that the victim had gone out of her free will on 18/6/2012 while the POCSO Act itself came into force on 14/11/2012 and therefore it is not applicable.