Conviction For Completed Offence Invalid If Charge Was Only For Attempt Under POCSO: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that an accused cannot be convicted for a completed offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act if the charge framed against him was only for an attempt to commit the offence.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha made the observation while partly allowing an appeal against conviction in a case involving allegations of sexual assault on a minor girl aged about 4½ years.
The appellant had been convicted by the trial court for the offence of aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment.
However, the High Court noted that the charge framed against him was only for attempt to commit aggravated sexual assault under Section 18 of the Act.
Examining the evidence, the Court observed that though the materials does make out a case of aggravated sexual assault, the accused cannot be convicted for the same as he has been Charged only for an attempt to commit aggravated sexual assault.
“The accused has been charged only for an attempt to commit the offence of aggravated sexual assault and not for commission of the offence under Section 9(m). The Charge was never amended by the trial court from attempt to commit aggravated sexual assault to commission of aggravated sexual assault. Therefore, the trial court apparently went wrong in convicting him for committing the offence of aggravated sexual assault, as he was never Charged for the same,” it said.
Accordingly, the High Court modified the conviction to one under Section 18 read with Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act.
On the question of sentence, the Court noted that under Section 18 of the Act, punishment for attempt cannot exceed half of the maximum term prescribed for the completed offence. Since the maximum punishment under Section 10 is seven years, the sentence was reduced to three and a half years' rigorous imprisonment.
Appearance: Ms. Manika Tripathy, Advocate (DHCLSC) with Mr. Aakash M., Mr. Raman Khan, Ms. Nandini Goel and Mr. Saksham Singh, Advocates for Appellant; Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State with SI Komal, P.S. Aman Vihar Mr. Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, Ms. Shagun Agarwal and Mr. Pritesh Raj, Advocates for victim.
Case title: Sudarshan v. State
Case no.: CRL.A. 1144/2016