RAVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ravi challenges the impugned judgment dated 17th May, 2017 convicting him for offence punishable under Section 354A IPC and section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO Act') and the order on sentence dated 23rd May, 2017 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for offence punishable under Section 354A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for offence punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act.

(2.) Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant contends that there are improvements in the statements of the prosecutrix. Father of the prosecutrix (PW-3) does not depose about the previous incidents. Offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act is not made out since sexual intent is required to qualify the offence of sexual assault as defined under Section 7 of POCSO Act which is absent in the present case.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand submits that the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 was recorded on the very next day of the incident and the intention of the appellant is evident from the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein she elaborately narrates the entire incident. Furthermore, there was time gap in recording the testimony of prosecutrix in Court. Lastly, the appellant is involved in 8 other cases.