SANKARAVARMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/Accused in S.C.No.433 of 2013 was convicted by the trial Court by the judgment dtd. 30/5/2017 for the offences under Ss. 12, 6 r/w. 18 and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO Act') and sentenced him to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00, in default, to undergo further period of 3 months rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec. 12 of POCSO Act, sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00, in default, to undergo further period of 3 months rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec. 6 r/w 18 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00, in default, to undergo further period of 3 months rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec. 10 of POCSO Act. Aggrieved against the said conviction, the appellant had preferred the above appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is the victim and daughter of the appellant. The complainant, her mother, her younger sister and the appellant are staying together, the complainant was aged about 14 years studying 10th standard, her mother was in Indian National Congress, General Secretary, incharge of State of Karnataka, Lakshadeep and Andamon Island. The complainant's mother used to travel in connection with her party work. Her father/appellant in the same party, working as Assistant Returning Officer. On 8/5/2013, her mother had gone to Lakshadeep for her party work, on that day, at about 10.00 p.m., the appellant forced the victim to sit on his lap and at that time, his penis erected, which was irritating to the victim. Further, she was attempted to be molested, she was taken to the bedroom, her dress removed and the appellant undressed and attempted to commit sexual assault. Later on the cry of the victim, he left her.

(3.) During trial, on the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW11 examined, Exs.P1 to P13 marked and M.O.1 and M.O.2 produced. On the side of the accused, he examined himself as DW1 and marked Ex.D1. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant as stated above.