MAHADEV GURLING KAMBLE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for the sake of brevity), Sangli in Special Case (POCSO) No.120/2014, thereby convicting the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Section 354A(i)(2) of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act. For the offence punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years apart from imposition to pay fine of Rs.10,000/ and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Similarly, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 1/2 months for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act. The learned trial Court had directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) Facts in brief leading to the prosecution and resultant conviction as well as sentence imposed on the appellant/accused can be summarized thus:

(3.) I heard Mr. Vikas Singh, the learned Advocate appointed to represent the appellant/accused at the costs of the State. He argued that evidence of the victim, who happens to be child witness is not free from doubt. The appellant/accused was not sharing good relations with the family of the victim female child/PW1, and therefore, he is falsely implicated in the crime in question. The learned Counsel further argued that the prosecution has not proved the fact that the appellant/accused had shown any obscene pictures or pornographical images to the victim female child, and therefore, conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO cannot be sustained.