OMHARI SATYANARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these applications are preferred by the applicant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The applicant has been convicted for offences punishable under Ss. 7 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act') and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000.00. He is also convicted for offence under Ss. 354-A and 354 of Indian Penal Code (for short " IPC ") but no separate sentence is passed.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the victim had boarded the local train and she was followed by the accused and he outraged her modesty. The victim had apprehended the accused with the help of some passengers and thereafter the Police Constable accompanied them to Mulund Police Station and subsequently the First Information Report (for short 'FIR') was registered with Dadar Police Station.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant was on bail during the trial. The trial Court had suspended the sentence on the date of conviction. The prosecution case suffers from the serious infirmities. The victim has not not produced any evidence in the nature of ticket or railway pass to show that, she was travelling in the train on the day of incident. The Investigating Officer has not collected the CCTV footage to show the presence of applicant and the victim at the spot of incident. The case of the victim is that, she was accompanied by her friend. However, the statement of the friend of victim was not recorded. Spot panchanama was not recorded. The passengers who had apprehended the accused along with the victim were not examined. These discrepancies goes to the root of the matter and the conviction based on such infirmities will have to be set aside at the appropriate stage.