Facts
The informant alleged that on 13.10.2014, his 14-year-old daughter was enticed away by the appellant Anku in a Maruti car, aided by appellants Santosh and Pintu.
Source reference: para. 4The victim was recovered a month later in Anku’s company.
Source reference: para. 8The trial court convicted Anku under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment. Santosh and Pintu were convicted under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.
Source reference: para. 2, 13The appellants challenged these convictions on grounds of delayed FIR, lack of independent witnesses, and insufficient proof of the victim's age.
Source reference: para. 15, 16Issues
1. Whether the charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act against Anku were proved beyond reasonable doubt?
Source reference: para. 192. Whether the conviction of Pintu and Santosh is sustainable based on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2?
Source reference: para. 193. Whether separate sentences under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act are legally permissible under Section 42 of the POCSO Act?
Source reference: para. 57, 59Law Applied
Section 42 of the POCSO Act provides that where an act or omission constitutes an offense punishable under this Act and also under the Indian Penal Code, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such offense shall be liable to punishment only under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree.
Source reference: para. 57Consent is legally immaterial when the victim is a minor under the POCSO Act and Section 376 of the IPC.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The court examined the evidence regarding the victim's age and held that she was a minor at the time of the incident, rendering any alleged consent irrelevant for the charges of kidnapping and sexual assault.
Source reference: no citationThe court evaluated the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the involvement of Santosh and Pintu in the act of enticing the girl away.
Source reference: no citationThe court analyzed Section 42 of the POCSO Act to determine the legality of awarding separate sentences for the same act under both the IPC and the POCSO Act.
Source reference: para. 57, 59Holding
The court maintained the conviction of Anku but adjusted the sentencing to comply with Section 42 of the POCSO Act.
The court addressed the sustainability of the convictions of Pintu and Santosh based on the reliability of the prosecution witnesses.
Source reference: no citationOriginal Court PDF
Anku @ ParshuramvsState Of U.P.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in