HIMANSHU ALIAS SHAMMI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following important issues arise for consideration in the present appeal: (a) As to whether the witnesses, being minors, were competent to testify in the Court in terms of Sec. 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Evidence Act) and their depositions considered for examining the guilt of the accused; (b) As to whether their testimonies necessarily required corroboration; and (c) As to whether testimonies of the mothers of the victims can be considered, applying the doctrine of res gestae, in view of Sec. 6 of the Evidence Act.

(2.) The appellant stands convicted on the testimonies of child witnesses, three in number and their mothers, four in number, based on the corroborative medical evidence. The correctness of the reasoning and the findings returned by the trial judge are subject matter of consideration before us.

(3.) Accused-Appellant Himanshu alias Shammi (hereinafter referred to as accused) has preferred the present appeal, laying challenge to the judgment dated 31.8.2016, passed by Special Judge, Chamba, Division Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.20 of 2015, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Himanshu alias Shammi, whereby he stands convicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay fine of Rs. 10,000.00 and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, in relation to offence punishable under Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act; and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, in relation to offence punishable under Sec. 506 of the Indian Penal Code.