Karnataka High Court Upholds 20-Year Sentence Of Man Charged U/S 377 IPC & POCSO For Assaulting 6-Yr-Old Boy

The Karnataka High Court recently upheld the order of the trial court sentencing a 27-year-old man to undergo 20 years ' rigorous imprisonment after convicting him for offences under Section 377 (Unnatural offence) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).A single judge, Justice J M Khazi, dismissed the appeal filed by Ansair Khasim Jingru, who had challenged the trial court order dated 24-11-2022 convicting him. It said “The examination of oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution clearly establishes the allegations made against the accused. The trial Court on detailed and thorough analysis of the evidence led by the prosecution has come to a correct conclusion that the accused has committed the offences alleged and convicted and sentenced him. The conclusions arrived at by the trial Court is consistent with the evidence on record and this Court finds no perversity calling for interference.” As per the prosecution on 15.03.2022 at 2.00 p.m, while the victim boy, aged about six years, was playing in front of the shop of Abdul Karim Alji situated at Kagal Hini village, the accused lured the victim boy to give a ride on his motorbike and took him near Aghanashini river at a distance of about one and a half kilometres and committed the offence. The appellant argued that the trial court had not considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and had come to an erroneous conclusion. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, except for the victim boy, who is just six years old and whose statement was recorded after one week. It was submitted that the medical evidence does not conclusively establish the alleged crime, and there is a delay in filing the complaint, which affects the prosecution's case.The prosecution opposed the plea, saying that the accused was not known to the family of the victim boy and they had no ill will or motive to falsely implicate the accused. Initially, the victim boy, except for saying that the accused had taken him on his motorbike, did not disclose what exactly transpired.It was stated that only on the basis of the medical examination were they able to know the nature of the offence and file the complaint. In the above facts and circumstances, the delay in filing the complaint is explained.The bench on going through the evidence of the witnesses and the documents produced to prove the age of the victim boy held “Through the testimony of these witnesses and the documents placed on record prosecution proved that as on the date of incident, the victim boy was around six years. Therefore, the provisions of the POCSO Act are applicable.” Rejecting the contention of the appellant that there was a delay in lodging the complaint, the court said, “It is pertinent to note that it was a shocking and humiliating experience for the victim boy to have undergone the unnatural sexual assault by the accused. For this reason, he was not ready to disclose what actually transpired. Only after the treatment and passage of time, he has opened and revealed the fact of a sexual assault on him.” It added, “For this reason only, in the complaint, the maternal uncle of the victim boy has stated that the victim boy did not disclose the details. Only after medical examination at Canara Health Care Centre, they came to know that it is a sexual assault and accordingly after his treatment at the Omega hospital, they have filed the complaint.” Considering the evidence of the victim boy, which is supported by the evidence of PW-15 Mohammed Khaleel Ingreji and PW-5 Abdul Kareem Alz who saw the accused boy being picked up and dropped on his motorcycle, the court said “The testimony of the victim boy and PWs-15 and 5 with regard to the identity of the accused is not disputed by the defence during their cross-examination.” It was held that Section 42 of POCSO Act required that where an act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under the said act and also under other law for the time being enforced, then the offender found guilty of such offence shall be punishable only under such law or this act, "which provides punishment which is greater in number.”The bench thus held, “Therefore, though in case of offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC, discretion is vested with the Court to punish the accused with minimum sentence, in the light of Section 42 of POCSO Act, the trial Court is justified in imposing rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and also imposing fine of ₹1 lakh. There is also no scope for interference while imposing the punishment also.” Advocates Neelendra Gunde, Santosh B Mane for Appellant.Appearance: HCGP Abhishek Mailpatil for R-1.Advocate Chitra M Goundalkar FOR R-2Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 240Case Title: Ansari AND State of Karnataka & ANR Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100081/2023Click Here To Read/Download Order

Karnataka High Court Upholds 20-Year Sentence Of Man Charged U/S 377 IPC & POCSO For Assaulting 6-Yr-Old Boy

Mustafa Plumber

Tags