GAYA PRASAD PAL @ MUKESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stands convicted and is aggrieved by judgment dated 15th October, 2015 (in Sessions Case No. 163/2013) on the charge with the gravamen of he having assaulted and committed forcible sexual intercourse with his less-than-14 years old step- daughter making her pregnant with his child and subjecting her to criminal intimidation. The trial held in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, also designated as Special Court under Section 28 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) for New Delhi district, had arisen out of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), submitted by Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Vasant Vihar (the police station) on 12.11.2013, upon conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) No. 458/2013. The Special Court, by its order dated 12.11.2013, upon perusal of the complaint and other documents submitted with the said report (charge-sheet), had taken cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 354A, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Sections 4 and 5 of POCSO Act. The trial judge by proceedings recorded on 10.01.2014 put the appellant on trial on charge for offences under Sections 354,376,506 IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO Act. On the conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment dated 15 th October, 2015 was passed holding the appellant guilty, as charged, for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 IPC besides under Section 4 of POCSO Act read with Section 376 IPC. By subsequent order dated 5th January, 2016, separate punishments were awarded against the appellant for offences punishable under Section 376 IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act, Section 354 IPC and Section 506 IPC. In addition, the trial judge directed compensation to be paid specifying the amounts at 13 lakhs payable with reference to Section 33 (8) of POCSO Act read with Rule 7 (2) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012 (POCSO Rules) besides 2 lakhs recommended under Section 357-A Cr.P.C. read with POCSO Rules.

(2.) By the appeal at hand, the appellant impugns not only his conviction but also the order on sentence.

(3.) SOME CONCERNS: Before we deal with the issues raised before us, lament on some aspects of the case needs to be expressed at the very outset. On the material placed before us it is beyond the pale of any doubt or controversy that the victim of the offences statedly committed by the appellant was a child' within the meaning of the expression defined in Section 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act, she being below the age of 18 years at the relevant point of time. Given the nature of offences involved, she is entitled to the protection envisaged by law in Section 33(7) of POCSO Act. To put it simply, the special court was duty bound to ensure that her identity was "not disclosed at any time". As we shall note later, this precaution was given a go-by during the proceedings before the trial judge more than once.