SUNIL PRALHAD RAMTEKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant, who is in jail, through his Advocate Mr. Amit S. Band. The appellant along with co-accused Rohit @ Golu were convicted by the learned Extra Joint Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Special Child Protection Case No. 246/2017 by its judgment and order dated 25.03.2019.

(2.) The appellant/accused no.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(i)(j) read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 16 and 17 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the POCSO Act" for the sake of brevity) and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, however no separate sentence was imposed on him for his conviction under Sections 16 and 17 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused no.2 Rohit @ Golu was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(j) of the Indian Penal Code read with under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. It is informed to this Court that the said co-accused chose not to file any appeal before this Court.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid, this Court is required to assess the prosecution case qua the appellant only, who was accused no.1 in Special Child Protection Case No. 246/2017.