MAHIBOOB Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, appellant/convicted accused is challenging judgment and order dated 25 th April 2018, passed by the learned Designated Court for Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred as 'POCSO' Act for the sake of brevity) Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Special Case No.72 of 2015 thereby, convicting him of offences punishable under Sections 6, 8, 10 and 12 of POCSO Act as well as under Sections 376(2)(i) , 376(2)(n) , 363 , 366-A of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the appellant/convicted accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. For offences punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act the appellant/convicted accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. For offences punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act the appellant/convicted accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.4000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. For offences punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act the appellant/convicted accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. No separate sentence came to be awarded to him for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code. For offences punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/convicted accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. For offences punishable under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/convicted accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 years, apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Brief facts in brief, leading to the prosecution as well resultant conviction of the appellant/accused can be summarized thus:

(3.) I have heard the learned advocate appointed to represent the appellant/convicted accused at the costs of the State. He vehemently argued that there is evidence to show that the victim female child/PW1 was kidnapped by the appellant/convicted accused. On the contrary, it is seen from her evidence that she voluntarily joined company of the appellant/convicted accused. Even history given by victim female child/PW1 to the Medical Officer shows that the alleged victim female child/PW1 was a consenting party. Her evidence is totally unreliable and is suffering from omissions in material particulars. Her statement under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code recorded by the learned Magistrate is totally at variance with her version before the Court. It is further argued that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the victim female child/PW1 was below 18 years of age at the time of incident in question. Birth Certificate sought to be relied by the prosecution is not having signature of either father or mother of the victim. Therefore, same can not be relied for determining the age of victim female child/PW1.