Delhi High Court
State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Manoj Kumar Yadav on 7 December, 2018
$~4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 7th December, 2018
+ CRL.A. 723/2018
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP
for the State with SI Anil, PS
Kanjhawala.
versus
MANOJ KUMAR YADAV ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Tahir Ashraf Siddiqui,
Advocate/ DHCLSC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The respondent was put on trial in the special court constituted
under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
('POCSO Act' for short) in criminal case (Sessions Case
No.184/2015) on the charge for offences punishable under Sections
9(m), Section 10 read with Section 18 of POCSO Act and
alternatively under Section 376 (2)(f) read with Section 511 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), besides charges under Sections 354
read with Section 354-B and Section 511 IPC and Section 11(m) &
Section 12 of POCSO Act.
2. The trial culminated in judgment dated 03.04.2018, whereby the
respondent was held guilty and convicted for the offence under
Sections 10 read with Section 18 of POCSO Act, he having been
acquitted on the other charges. By subsequent order dated 05.04.2018,
the trial court while directing compensation to be paid to the victim,
directed the respondent to undergo imprisonment for the period
beginning from 13.09.2015 (the date of arrest) till the date of the said
order, he having already undergone incarceration for the said duration.
As per the nominal roll dated 08.10.2018, the said period calculates to
incarceration for two years six months and twenty-two days.
3. The present appeal was filed by the State on the plea that the
punishment meted out to the respondent is not adequate, it being not
in sync with the minimum prescribed by Section 10 of POCSO Act.
4. The respondent through counsel submits that he has been held
guilty and convicted not for the offence under Section 10 of POCSO
Act but for the attempt to commit the said offence and this attracting
Section 18 of the POCSO Act.
5. Undoubtedly, for conviction under Section 10 of POCSO Act,
the law prescribes punishment which shall not be less than five years
of imprisonment but which may extend to seven years of
imprisonment with fine. But, in case of attempt to commit such an
offence, Section 18 gets attracted, it reading thus:-
"18. Punishment for attempt to commit an offence.-
Whoever attempts to commit any offence punishable under
this Act or to cause such an offence to be committed, and
in such attempt, does any act towards the commission of
the offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of any
description provided for the offence, for a term which may
extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the
case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment
provided for that offence or with fine or with both."
6. The plea of the appellant/State is clearly on wrong assumption
that the respondent has been held guilty and convicted for the offence
under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Since conviction is for the
offence under Section 10 read with Section 18 of POCSO Act, the
punishment may be in the form of imprisonment for a period
equivalent to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment that is
provided by the substantive provision.
7. In this view, there is no error in the view taken by the court of
sessions.
8. The appeal is dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 07, 2018
vk
