AARIF MAHAMADKHAN MALDAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the judgment and order dated 29 th November 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Designated court under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act for the sake of brevity), Ratnagiri, in Sessions Case No.16 of 2013, thereby convicting the appellant/accused of offences punishable under Sections 10 read with 9(i) of the POCSO Act as well as under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. He was, however, acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 376, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as of offences punishable under Sections 5(h) read with 6 of the POCSO Act. For offences punishable under Sections 10 read with 9(i) of the POCSO Act, the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence of simple imprisonment for 6 months. For the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 1 month.

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

(3.) I have heard Mr.Ganesh Bhujbal, the learned advocate appointed to represent the appellant/accused at the costs of the State. He argued that it was incumbent on the part of the prosecution to examine the Medical Officer in order to prove the fact that there was assault on the victim female child/PW1 and that sexual assault was caused by causing either grievous hurt or bodily harm and injury to the victim female child/PW1. Such evidence is absent. The learned advocate further argued that evidence of the victim female child/PW1 is artificial and she has not deposed anything to make out any offence against the appellant/accused. Her evidence shows that she was unconscious and therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the offence of aggravated sexual assault against the appellant/accused.