PRABHAKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-10, Nagpur, dated 16.7.2018 in Special POCSO Case No. 295/2016, whereby the appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the POCSO Act" for short). On each count, the appellant is directed to suffer simple imprisonment for Three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for Five days.

(2.) I have heard Mr. M. A. Randive, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. S. Rao, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Both the learned counsel took me through the record and proceedings and also the notes of evidence.

(3.) It is the submission of Mr. Randive, the learned counsel for the appellant with vehemence that the appellant is falsely implicated in the crime because he demanded rent from the parents of the victim and he was insisting that the parents of the victim should vacate the premises. He submitted that there are no injuries on genital parts of the victim. He submitted that there are no Chemical Analyser reports in the prosecution case. He submitted that the cumulative effect of these, is the false implication of the appellant in the crime.