PRAVIN @ DASHRATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenges the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola dtd. 22/4/2019 in Sessions Trial No. 38/2015. By the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the POCSO Act" for the sake of brevity) and he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 377 of the Indian Penal Code, however, no separate punishment for the said conviction is imposed upon the appellant.

(2.) Manisha Raut (PW5), in October, 2014 was attached to Police Station, Balapur as Assistant Police Inspector. On 8/10/2014 when she was present in the police station, first informant Jaya (PW1) came to police station along with her son. She lodged the report. It was reduced into writing as per her narration. It was duly signed by first informant Jaya as well as API Manisha. The oral report is at Exh.17. On the basis of said report, crime was registered vide Crime No. 200/2014 at Balapur police station against the appellant for the offence under Sec. 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and under Sec. 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The printed first information report is at Exh.18.

(3.) As per the oral report (Exh.17), which is dtd. 8/10/2014, first informant Jaya lost her husband in the year 2007 and she stays along with her son, the victim, who takes education in 6th standard. As per the report, on the date when the report was lodged, the victim boy disclosed to Jaya that his chest and stomach is paining and is also having headache. On an enquiry with him, he disclosed to Jaya that the appellant, who stays opposite their house, came on the previous day of 'Dasara' to the house of the victim when he was sitting on the stairs and took him inside the house. He then kissed him. Thereafter removed his pant and done 'gandi harkat' from anus. Thereafter, the appellant asked the victim that he should not disclose the incident because he will be called as "lofar" and he will be defamed and therefore, he did not disclose the incident immediately.