Case title : Amit Chavan v State of Maharashtra
Akash Rathod v State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 364 of 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 515 of 2022
Date: DECEMBER 05, 2024.
Quorum: GA Sanap, J.
Facts of the case
The case started in Khadka village in Akola district in Maharashtra. The appellants in this case were Amit Chavan and Akash Rathod and both were 19 years of age at the time of the happening of incident. The appellants were charged with the commission of an offense against a 14-year-old girl. It is alleged that on 26th August 2020, the appellant Akash entered the house of the victim during the absence of her mother and committed the offense of sexual assault. It is also alleged that at the time of the incident, Amit was present outside the house and was aiding Akash in the commission of the offense.
The FIR was registered after a delay of 9 days on 4th September 2020 which became one of the contentious issues at the time of the trial of the case. Both the appellants were convicted under the various charges of IPC and the POCSO Act at the time of the trial. Finally, the trial court found Akash guilty of Section 354-A IPC (sexual harassment), Section 354-D IPC ( stalking), Section 451 IPC( house trespass), and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act( sexual assault of a minor). The conviction of Amit was on the charges of being an accomplice on the grounds of his presence during the incident. Both the appellants have charged their conviction in the High Court.
ISSUE OF THE CASE
- Whether the delay of nine days in registering the FIR undermines the victim’s testimony and the case of prosecution?
- Whether the mere presence of Amit Chavan outside the house at the time of happening of incident establishes his criminal liability?
- Whether the actions of Akash Rathod fulfill the criteria for the offenses under Section 354 -A, 451 IPC, and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 354-A of IPC: This section criminalizes the acts of sexual harassment such as physical contact, advances, sexually colored remarks, or any unwelcome sexual conduct, It is used to safeguard individuals from any unwanted sexual attention and coercion.
Section 451 of IPC: This section defines house trespass. It occurs when a person unlawfully enters into another person’s property with the intention to commit an offense. This section helps to protect individuals from any unauthorized trespass or intrusion into the premises of the house.
Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO: Section 7 states that physical contact of a sexual nature with a child is an offense under POCSO. Section 8 defines the punishment for this offense. These provisions aim to protect minors from sexual exploitation and abuse.
Section 354-D of IPC: This section defines the offense of stalking and states that any repeated or continuous acts to monitor, follow or contact a person with the intention to cause harm, harassment, or fear is an offense under Section 354-D of IPC. This section’s purpose is to criminalize any acts of harassment that involve unwanted surveillance or communication and focuses on happening of repeated behavior rather than a single instance.
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER:
Amit Chavan (petitioner contended that his mere presence outside the house at the time of the incident does not imply that he was directly involved in the offense. There is no evidence which suggests that there was a direct link between the actual assault and his act. It was also contended that mere association with the accused should not be considered a ground to hold him liable. The petitioner ( Amit Chavan) also challenged the charges of stalking under Section 354-D of the IPC and contended that a single instance of following the victim should not qualify as stalking. The law as per the definition of stalking requires repeated behaviour and a single incident cannot be claimed as stalking. The other petitioner (Akash Rathod) requested a reduction in his sentence on the grounds of his age. He also contended a reduction in his sentence period based on the time he had already in prison.
ARGUMents OF RESPONDENT
The respondent in this case argued that the delay of nine days in filing of FIR should not be held against the victim. The victim justified the delay in filing an FIR by stating that the victim suffered emotional and social circumstances and victim feared retaliation from the accused. It was argued that Amit Chavan is criminally liable for his involvement in the crime. His presence outside the house of the victim at the time of the incident indicated his association with the accused. Even if he was not directly involved in the commission of the offense, his mere presence suggests he was part of the criminal act.
The respondent also highlighted the previous occurrences of the petitioner (Akash Rathod) such as unwelcome advances which suggest a series of attempts of repeated unwanted behavior which should be held as amounting to stalking under Section 354-D of IPC. The respondent also argued that the punishment given to Akash Rathod should be on the basis of the gravity of the crime and not on the basis of his young age. The crime committed by the accused involves a sexual assault on a minor which is deemed a serious offence under law which means that the punishment awarded to the accused should be appropriate to deliver justice to the victim.
Analysis
An important aspect of this case is the delay in the registration of FIR which is often taken as a pretext to deny the commission of the sexual offences. The Bombay High Court’s approach shows the court’s sensitivity toward the victims of sexual harassment. The case also shows that there were no repeated attempts of stalking and there is no evidence of continuous behavior of the accused. The court’s decision to acquit Amit in the absence of any evidence suggests an attempt to prevent the criminalization using false charges.
The court also upheld the charges against Akash Rathod and held that there is strong evidence that shows Akash Rathod’s culpability under Section 354-A of IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO.
JUDGMENT
The High Court’s judgment held Akash Rathod liable under Section 354-A IPC, Section 451 IPC, and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. His conviction was upheld by the High Court. The duration of the sentence was reduced on the grounds of the already served sentence with an additional fine of 5000 Rs. Amit Chavan was acquitted of all the charges against him due to a lack of evidence of his participation or intention to commit the offense.
CONCLUSION
The judgment in the case shows a balanced approach towards ensuring the delivery of justice. The High Court has shown the balance between the proportionality of punishment and the seriousness of the offense and has served justice both to the accused and to the victim. The court has also upheld the importance of a fair trial procedure by giving a fair verdict. The court has shown compassion towards the accused by reducing his sentence and has given him a chance to rehabilitate back to society. The court through the acquittal of Amit Chavan has also shown that the rule of law protects the innocents from wrongful conviction or false assumptions due to lack of evidence.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY MUSKAN
