P.Prakash, 27 Years v. the State by
Case brief
What is this about?
This criminal appeal challenging a conviction for abducting a minor and attempting sexual abuse under the POCSO Act was dismissed. The court rejected arguments regarding FIR delay, suppression of victim's age, and lack of bodily injury, relying instead on forensic evidence and corroboration to uphold the trial court's judgment.
What did the court decide?
Criminal Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of the Sessions Court confirmed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on Pronounced on 28.09.2019 19.10.2019
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
Crl.A.No.858 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.14012 of 2016
P.Prakash ... Appellant / Accused -vsThe State by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District. (Crime No. 4 of 2016) ... Respondent / Complainant
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C, seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant by the judgment dated 17.11.2016 passed in Special S.C.No.13 of 2016 on the file of the Sessions Court, Mahalir Court, Mahalir Fast Track Court, Erode and thus render justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan
For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
J U D G M E N T
The Appellant herein, who is the Sole Accused in Special S.C. No. 13 of 2016 on the file of the Sessions Court (Mahalir Fast Track Court), Erode, stands convicted by the Trial Court for offences under Section 366 IPC and Sections 6 r/w 18 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'the POCSO Act, 2012) as follows:
Sl.No Offence Conviction and Sentence . 1. Section 366 IPC To undergo Ten Years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to pay fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for Two Years.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a delay of five hours in lodging the complaint of sexual assault on a minor can be said to be inordinate and undermine the prosecution case.
Whether the provisions of the POCSO Act apply when there was no penetration but there was an attempt to abuse and evidence of semen on the victim's clothing.
Whether the conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 366 IPC and the POCSO Act should be set aside on the grounds raised by the appellant.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
P. Prakash
- respondent
The State by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Gobichettipalayam
Coram
S. Vaidyanathan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court