SHABIR AHMAD NAIK Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, each dtd. 7/6/2024 passed by the Fast Track Court for POCSO Cases, Srinagar (for short "the trial court"), whereby the appellant has been convicted for the commission of offence under Sec. 10 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act (for short "the POCSO Act") and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of seven years along with fine of Rs.25,000.00. In case of default in payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo further imprisonment for six months.

(2.) Mr. Wajid Mohammad Haseeb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the following issues:

(3.) Per Contra, Mr. Alla-Ud-Din Ganai, learned AAG has argued that the prosecution had proved the case to the hilt against the appellant and that is why the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant and contradictions, if any, are minor in nature having no material and substantial effect upon the prosecution case. He has further argued that as the victim was a minor child, some contradictions are bound to occur in his testimony. He has vehemently submitted that in fact the accused had not attempted to commit an offence and rather had committed an offence within the meaning of Sec. -10 of the POCSO Act, therefore, there is no illegality in the judgment of the conviction recorded by the learned trial court. He has further argued that the evidence of the minor victim has been corroborated by other students of the same Madrasa, as such, there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned trial court. He laid much stress that in view of the applicability of Sec. -29 of the POCSO Act which provided for the presumption on the part of the accused to have committed an offence under the POCSO Act, the appellant has been rightly convicted by the learned trial court, as the appellant miserably failed to rebut the presumption by leading any cogent evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the prosecution. He has also submitted that the defence witnesses examined by the appellant have not been able to belie the case projected by the prosecution.