01Facts
The appellant was accused of kidnapping a minor girl (PW1), aged 11, on 03.03.2019 under the pretext of attending his daughter's birthday.
p. 10He allegedly took her to a secluded jungle near Khera Dabar Village, committed penetrative sexual assault, and attempted to strangulate her when she resisted.
p. 11After regaining consciousness, PW1 was dropped home by an unidentified motorcyclist.
p. 11The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 28.11.2024, convicted the appellant under Sections 363, 366, 307 of the IPC and Section 6 read with 5(m) of the POCSO Act.
pp. 1-2The appellant challenged the conviction, citing material inconsistencies, failure to examine the motorcyclist, a financial dispute with the victim's family, and lack of proof regarding the victim's age.
pp. 7-802Issues
i.1. Whether there is any infirmity in the Trial Court’s judgment regarding the conviction under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act.
p. 9ii.2. Whether the prosecution satisfactorily established the age of the victim to attract Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act.
p. 8 / p. 21iii.3. Whether the ingredients of Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder) were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
p. 2603Law Applied
The Court applied Sections 361 and 363 IPC for kidnapping from lawful guardianship and Section 366 IPC for kidnapping with intent to compel illicit intercourse.
p. 17Regarding the age of the victim, the Court applied Section 34 of the POCSO Act and the principles established in Sasi v. State of Kerala, holding that certificates prepared by school principals for the IO are hit by Section 162 CrPC and are inadmissible, whereas original admission registers carry evidentiary weight.
p. 22For the charge of attempt to murder, the Court relied on Om Parkash v. State of Punjab and Hari Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand, which emphasize that the "intention or knowledge" to cause death is the sine qua non for Section 307 IPC.
pp. 27-28Provisions in the judgment · 17 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 363Section 366Section 307Section 361Section 506Section 300
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 5Section 6Section 3
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 207Section 313Section 232Section 164Section 161Section 162Section 235
04Reasoning
The Court found the testimony of the child victim (PW1) to be "substantially consistent" across her FIS/FIR, Section 164 statement, and Court deposition.
p. 20This testimony was corroborated by his brother (PW6) and medical evidence (Ext. PW5/A) showing a torn hymen and neck abrasions.
pp. 20-21Regarding the victim's age, the Court accepted the school admission register (Ext. PW2/A) recording her birth date as 13.08.2008, rendering her 11 years old at the time of the incident.
p. 23The Court dismissed the defense of financial animosity as "unsubstantiated" and ruled that the failure to examine the motorcyclist was not fatal since he was not an eyewitness to the crime itself.
p. 24 · pp. 25-26Regarding Section 307 IPC, the Court observed that while neck injuries existed, the prosecution failed to prove a specific "intention or knowledge" to cause death, noting that choking during a sexual assault does not automatically equate to an intent to murder.
p. 2905Holding
The High Court partly allowed the appeal, confirming the conviction under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, while acquitting the appellant of the charge under Section 307 IPC.
p. 31The Court modified the sentence for the POCSO Act conviction, reducing it from 14 years to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the other sentences to run concurrently.
p. 31Original Court PDF
Shamsher AlamvsState Nct Of Delhi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
