REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAGHAV Appellant

V/S

STATE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

VIJAY V. STATE OF M.P. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. CHANDRAPRAKASH KEWALCHAND JAIN [REFERRED TO]
BODHISATTWA GAUTAM V. SUBHRA CHAKRABORTY [REFERRED TO]
KARNEL SINGH V. STATE OF M.P. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB V. GURMEET SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB V. GURMIT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BHUPINDER SHARMA V. STATE OF H.P. [REFERRED TO]
JARNAIL SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH V. SANJAY KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA V. THAKARA BESRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. V. PAPPU [REFERRED TO]
TEK BAHADUR V. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) [REFERRED TO]
WAHID KHAN V. STATE OF M.P. [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI KANT PANDEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. RAGHUBIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
TULSHIDAS KANOLKAR VS. STATE OF GOA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. BASTI RAM [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, at the instance of the appellant Raghav, assails (i) judgment, dated 3rd March, 2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred to as "the learned ASJ") whereby the appellant was convicted for having committed offences under clauses (l) and (m) of section 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the POCSO Act") and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC"), as well as (ii) the subsequent order, dated 4th March, 2014, sentencing the appellant to (a) imprisonment for life, along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, with default simple imprisonment for six months, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and (b) rigorous imprisonment for three years alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default simple imprisonment of one month under Section 506 of the IPC. The benefit of section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") was also extended to the appellant. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The facts of the case, insofar as they are relevant, may be set out as under:

Click here to view full judgment.

RAGHAV Vs. STATE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address