Karnataka High Court
XYZ V. State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2097 OF 2018
Bench- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2097 OF 2018
Decided On 30-05-2023
Facts of the case-
The prosecution’s case revolves around a complaint filed by PW1/Roopamma, the mother of the victim. According to the complaint (Ex.P1), Roopamma’s daughter went to school on November 24, 2016, but later went missing. The police initiated an investigation upon receiving the complaint and eventually located the victim, PW2/victim girl. She was found and taken to Chintamani police station, and later transferred to the jurisdiction of Kolar Police Station.
During the investigation, the victim’s statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). Subsequently, she underwent a medical examination, which revealed that the accused had abducted her on his motorcycle while she was on her way home from school. He took her to a relative’s house, where he sexually assaulted her. After learning about the incident, the victim’s mother filed a complaint. The accused later dropped the victim near Chintamani police station. On November 29, 2016, the accused was arrested.
Following the completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant, charging him with offenses punishable under Sections 363, 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act.
The accused was in judicial custody, and during the trial, he denied the charges but chose not to present a defense. After the charges were framed for the offenses punishable under Sections 363, 376 of the IPC, and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the prosecution presented its evidence, including the examination of 20 witnesses, the submission of 29 documents, and the introduction of 11 material objects. Subsequently, the accused’s statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
The trial court found the appellant guilty of the offenses punishable under Sections 363, 376 of the IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. As a result, the appellant was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offense under Section 363 of the IPC, seven years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offense under Section 376 of the IPC, and ten years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offense under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In case of default in paying the fines, the appellant would undergo one month of additional imprisonment. Additionally, compensation was awarded to the victim.
Unsatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the appellant has brought the case before the court.
Judgement
The High Court has ruled that while the trial court has the authority to find an accused guilty of a lesser offense even if the charges were framed for more serious offenses, it cannot convict and sentence the accused for a major offense carrying a higher imprisonment term without modifying the charges as per Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The High Court found that the trial court had committed a clear illegality and error by imposing a sentence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act. The bench referred to Section 42 of the Act, stating that it empowers the court to impose alternative punishment if the accused is found guilty of offenses punishable under both Section 376 of the IPC and the POCSO Act, with the latter being of greater degree.
The court further explained that the trial court cannot impose double sentences for the same offense that falls under both Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. While the court can find the accused guilty of both offenses, it must award punishment for only one offense, specifically the one that carries the greater degree of punishment.
In light of the evidence presented, including the testimonies of the victim (PW2), her mother (PW1), the medical officer (PW9), and the investigation officer, the court acquitted the accused of charges of sexual assault. It determined that the prosecution had failed to prove that the victim was sexually assaulted on November 24, 2016, or until November 26, 2016, based on the evidence, including the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC.
However, the court concluded that the prosecution was able to establish that the accused had abducted the victim girl, taken her to Andhra Pradesh, and detained her, which is punishable under Sections 363 and 342 of the IPC.
Considering that the appellant had already been in custody for over seven years, surpassing the prescribed punishment of seven years under Section 363 of the IPC, and that the offense punishable under Section 342 of the IPC carries a one-year imprisonment term with a fine, the bench took into account the provisions of Section 428 of the CrPC and adjusted the sentences already served by the appellant.
Accordingly, the court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, while upholding the conviction and sentence for the offenses under Sections 363 and 342 of the IPC. The sentences already undergone by the appellant were adjusted accordingly.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA
“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 fall into a 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.”
