Mohd. Akku v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal against conviction for rape and POCSO offence. High Court affirmed conviction but modified sentence, ruling that imprisonment for same act runs concurrently per Section 42 POCSO.
What did the court decide?
Appeal partly allowed; conviction maintained but sentence modified; 10 years imprisonment to run concurrently; no separate sentence for IPC 376.
What the court decided
1
A.F.R. Reserved on 17.08.2022 Delivered on 20.10.2022
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 775 of 2017 Appellant :- Mohd. Akku Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Vimal Shukla,Piyush Kumar Singh,Prabhat Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
- The instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred by the appellant Mohd. Akku against the judgement and order dated 02.05.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Balrampur in Special Criminal Case No. 84 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2013, under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 1912 (in short ‘POCSO Act’), Police Station- Panchpedwa, District Balrampur, whereby the accused- appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and has been sentenced for the offence under Section 376 IPC for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and of fine of Rs.3000/- with further direction that in default of payment of fine, the appellant has further to undergo three months additional rigorous imprisonment and again has been sentenced for the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act for the same sentence i.e. 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/- with further direction that any default of payment of fine, the appellant has to further undergo three months additional rigorous imprisonment.
2
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act for the same act should be sentenced to imprisonment running concurrently or consecutively?
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant under both IPC 376 and POCSO Section 6 for the same act in violation of Section 42 of POCSO Act?
Whether the conviction and sentence for offences under IPC 376 and POCSO Section 6 regarding the same transaction were sustainable?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Mohd. Akku
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Prakash Singh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · October
- Registered
- Case no.
- /775/2017
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court