SURESH RAJU MUKANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2, Vasai in POCSO Spl. Case No.82 of 2016 for committing the offences punishable under Ss. 4 , 5(m) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, "POCSO Act") and Ss. 376(2)(i) and 366A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, " IPC "). On being convicted under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act, he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 20 years alongwith fne of Rs.15,000.00 and in default to pay fne, to undergo S.I. for six months. The conviction under Sec. 366A has resulted in a sentence of R.I. for 10 years, being imposed upon him.

(2.) The prosecution allege that it is the appellant/accused, aged 25 years, who committed sexual assault upon a girl child, aged three and half years, dwelling on footpath at R.J.Nagar, Virar, Taluka Vasai, with her parents and younger sister. It is alleged that on 28/08/2016, when the child's father went out of the station and the mother alongwith her children after having dinner went to sleep on the footpath, in front of a shop at around 9.30 p.m. and when she awoke to attend natures call, she did not fnd her daughter. She, therefore, took search in the vicinity and the appellant, residing in the neighbourhood near Ambamata Temple, on noticing the mother ran away from the spot, but at a later point, he asked her to stop and she heard the child whimpering and, thereafter, the appellant entered a dilapidated house located alongside the road and brought her child out, who was without any clothes on her body and blood was oozing from her private part. The mother noticed that the child was sexually abused and when she was about to question the appellant, he fed from the spot.

(3.) The above incident was reported to Virar Police Station by the mother, where she expressed her suspicion that it is the appellant, who is responsible for the said act and, therefore, on registering the FIR, the offences under Ss. 376(2)(i) and 366A came to be invoked. Since the victim girl was minor, Ss. 3, 4, 5(m), 6, 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act were also invoked.