By Tanishka Shah

The appellant, convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), challenged the Trial Court’s judgment sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. The case dates back to 2014, when the appellant was accused of raping a 10-year-old girl, who was his relative. The prosecution alleged that the appellant lured the victim to Banaras, administered intoxicants, and committed the offense.

Following an investigation, charges were framed under Sections 365, 366-A, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Trial Court found the appellant guilty, basing its decision on the victim’s consistent testimony, corroborative medical evidence, and other witness accounts.

The Patna High Court noted a procedural and substantive error in the Trial Court’s application of the law. It clarified that the victim, based on medical evidence, was above 12 years of age at the time of the incident. Therefore, the offense constituted penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, not aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6.

The Court emphasized that Section 6, as it existed in 2014, did not prescribe rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. The Trial Court failed to account for this and imposed a sentence beyond the statutory limits. The High Court held that the appellant’s imprisonment for 10 years already served was sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

The High Court increased the victim compensation from ₹4 lakhs to ₹5 lakhs, acknowledging the trauma endured by the victim. It upheld the fine of ₹50,000 imposed by the Trial Court, directing its payment to the victim.

The judgment underscores the importance of correctly determining a victim’s age using evidence outlined in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, including school records or municipal certificates. The High Court relied on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana for procedural guidance on age determination and held that medical opinions, while helpful, are not conclusive.

Case Title: Md. Mahmood Alam v. State of Bihar
Citation:  CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.357 of 2022, Arising Out of PS. Case No.-385 Year-2014, Thana- Tilauthu, District- Rohtas
Click here to read/download the judgment