Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Judge For Speedy Trial Of Offences ... vs Unknown on 30 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE NO.: Crl.A.No.390 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
Date ORDER
No. NOTE
01 30.08.2022
SRS,J
Crl.A.No.390 of 2022
ADMIT.
Call for lower Court record.
___________
SRS, J
I.A.No.1 of 2022
This petition is filed to suspend the
conviction and sentence dated 11.08.2022 imposed
in S.C.No.19 of 2019 (Old S.C.No.32 of 2016) on the
file of learned Special Judge for Speedy Trial of
Offences under the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, Vijayawada.
The above appeal is filed against judgment
dated 11.08.2022 passed in S.C.No.19 of 2019 (Old
S.C.No.32 of 2016) on the file of learned Special
Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
Vijayawada, whereby the petitioner was convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC
and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years and shall
pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment
of fine amount, the petitioner to undergo simple
imprisonment of three months. Out of total fine
amount, an amount of Rs.9,000/- is payable to the
victim girl i.e. PW3 towards compensation under
Section 357(1) Cr.P.C.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the Court below failed to appreciate that in
Ex.P2/birth certificate the date of birth of the victim
girl was mentioned as 30.05.1998. He submits that
study certificate issued by private institution i.e.
Atkinson Senior Secondary School is not a
competent document to decide the date of birth and
SSC certificate or Aadhaar card or any other cogent
material has to be filed by the prosecution, as such
it cannot be taken into consideration that the victim
was minor. He further submits that there is no
proof to show that the petitioner is the person who
was responsible for screening through his mobile
and the height of bathroom is about eight feet, as
such there is no possibility of seeing or peeping
through the bathroom window. He further submits
that prosecution has changed its version wherein at
one point of time it was alleged that petitioner
screened the bathing of the victim and at other
point of time, it is alleged that the petitioner peeped
into the bathroom. He submits that prosecution
failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond
reasonable doubt and provisions of Section 12 of
POCSO Act are not attracted. Hence, he prays to
grant the relief as prayed for.
Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and submissions of learned counsel for
petitioner, the sentence of imprisonment imposed
against the petitioner alone is suspended pending
the criminal appeal on condition of petitioner
executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees
twenty thousand only) with two sureties each for a
likesum to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge
for Speedy Trial of Offences under the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, Vijayawada.
___________
SRS, J
IKN
