Case laws:
S. Velan v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Chennai (decided on June 16, 2016, by the Madras High Court)
Facts:
•The appellant, S. Velan, was accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl (P.W.3) on September 9, 2014.
•The victim’s mother (P.W.1) lodged a complaint, leading to the registration of a case under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
•Upon confirming the victim’s age as below 12 years, the charge was altered to Section 10 of the POCSO Act, which deals with aggravated sexual assault.
Issues:
•Whether the appellant committed aggravated sexual assault as defined under Section 10 of
the POCSO Act.
•Whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt.
Judgment:
•The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him
to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000.
•On appeal, the Madras High Court examined the evidence, including testimonies from the
victim, her mother, and other witnesses.
•The court found inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, particularly regarding the lack of direct evidence of physical contact by the appellant with sexual intent.
•The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted him of all charges.
Reference : https://lextechsuite.com/S-Velan-Versus-State-represented-by-the-Inspector-of-Police-Chennai-2016-06-16?
State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) vs. Pappu
In the case of State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) v. Pappu, decided on October 13, 2022, the Delhi High Court addressed the sentencing requirements under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which pertains to aggravated sexual assault.
Facts:
•The accused, Pappu, was convicted by the trial court for offences under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
•The trial court sentenced him to the period already undergone, which was approximately
nine months, for both offenses.
Issues:
•Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court for the offense under Section 10 of the
POCSO Act was in accordance with the statutory requirements.
Judgment:
•The Delhi High Court observed that Section 10 of the POCSO Act prescribes a minimum
sentence of five years of rigorous imprisonment, which may extend to seven years, along with a fine.
•The court noted that the trial court’s sentence of the period already undergone
(approximately nine months) was below the statutory minimum and thus not in conformity with the law.
•Consequently, the High Court modified the sentence, imposing rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of ₹25,000 for the offense under Section 10 of the POCSO
Act.
•The sentence for the offense under Section 363 IPC was maintained as the period already
undergone.
This judgment underscores the mandatory nature of minimum sentencing provisions under the POCSO Act, emphasizing that courts must adhere to the prescribed statutory minimum sentences for offenses, particularly those involving sexual crimes against children.
Reference : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/166092503/?utm
State V. Abdul Razzak , 2014
Facts:
- The accused attempted rape on a minor of about 8 years of age (details are mentioned in the link referred to)
- Issues:
1. Whether the accused committed aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act
2.Whether the prosecution’s evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
3.Whether the accused’s actions showed criminal intent to commit sexual assault
4.Whether the intervention by the neighbour prevented a graver offense, such as rape
5.Whether the case met the statutory requirements for punishment under Section 10 of the POCSO Act
Judgment:
•The prosecution needed to establish that the accused intentionally committed sexual assault on a minor under 12 years of age, meeting the criteria for aggravated sexual assault as defined in the Act.
•This included the victim’s testimony, medical evidence, and corroborative statements from witnesses like the victim’s mother and the neighbour who intervened.
•The court had to assess whether the accused’s actions of luring the victim to his room, locking the door, and undressing both himself and the child constituted clear intent for sexual assault.
•The court considered whether the timely interruption by the neighbour mitigated further harm to the victim but did not absolve the accused of the offense already committed.
•The court needed to determine the appropriate sentence in light of the provisions under the Act, ensuring it adhered to the mandatory minimum punishment for aggravated sexual assault.
Reference: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/57673406/
State V Munna Lal , 2013
Reference: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813731/
In re: Alamgir Sk. 2020
In re: Sudeb Nayak Sk. 2022
