RAMESH MAIKU KANOJIYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the judgment and order dated 30th March 2017 passed by the learned Designated court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act for the sake of brevity), Mumbai, in POCSO Case No.432 of 2014, thereby convicting him of offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The learned trial court was pleased to sentence the appellant/accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from directing him to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, but had not awarded any separate punishment for offences punishable under Sections 506 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act by holding that punishment for offences under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 4 of the POCSO Act is greater in degree than offences punishable under Sections 506 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. It is reported that State has not challenged this judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence despite the fact that instead of punishing the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, he is convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, so also, no separate punishment was inflicted on the appellant/accused for offences of criminal intimidation and wrongful confinement of the victim female child.

(2.) Facts, in brief, leading to the prosecution of the appellant/accused and the resultant sentence, can be summarized thus :

(3.) I have heard the learned advocate appointed to represent the appellant/accused at the costs of the State. He argued that evidence of the PW1/victim female child is not worth relying. Though in the Seizure Panchnama, white stains were seen on seized pants of the PW1/victim female child, the Chemical Analyser's Report shows that semen was found on T-Shirt of the PW1/victim female child and therefore, evidence of the prosecution is unreliable. According to the learned advocate for the appellant/accused, there is no other evidence to connect the appellant/accused with the crime in question. He argued that medical evidence is also not supporting the case of the prosecution.