ZHAKIR MEHFUJ ALAM SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been preferred by the appellant-accused aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, District Thane, in Special Case No.05 of 2013 dated 26th March 2014 by which the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act for the sake of brevity) and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine, directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years. The Additional Sessions Judge further convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 506, 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellantaccused for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year with fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine, directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 months. The Additional Sessions Judge further sentenced the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine, directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 month. In addition, the Additional Sessions Judge directed the appellant-accused to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac (Rupees One Lac Only) each to both survivors. The Additional Sessions Judge ordered both the sentences to run concurrently. The Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to grant benefit of set-off as per Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. for the period during which the accused remained in jail as an under-trial prisoner.

(2.) As noted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhupinder Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2003 AIR(SC) 4684 : (2003) 8 SCC 551 that the mandate of not disclosing identities of the victims of sexual offence under Section 228-A of the IPC ought to be observed in spirit.

(3.) We are, thus, not disclosing the victims' name and instead are referring to them a "victims" throughout this judgment.