State Of Haryana vs Ashok Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 15592 P&H

CRA-D-1017-2022                      1


204   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH
                                    CRA-D-1017-2022
                                    Decided on 02.12.2022.
State of Haryana

                                                                  ...Appellant
                               Versus


Ashok Kumar
                                                               ...... Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present:    Mr. Pravindra S. Chauhan, Sr. Additional AG, Haryana
            for the appellant.

                  *****
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

Appellant seeks enhancement of sentence of the respondent-accused

who was convicted vide judgment of conviction dated 12.11.2021 by the

Additional Sessions Judge-Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

(for short 'POCSO Act') Court, Rohtak, under Sections 354-C, 506, 376 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') read with Section 511 IPC and Section 6 read

with Section 18 of the POCSO Act. Vide order of sentence of even date, the

respondent-accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period

of 02 years under Section 354-C, IPC alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of

payment of which, further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 months was

ordered. Under Section 506 IPC, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period

of 04 years was imposed. Under Section 376-C read with Section 511 IPC, he was

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years along with

fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 months and under Section 6 read with 18

1 of 3

of the POCSO Act, sentence rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years along

with fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed. In default of payment of fine, further

rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 months was ordered. It was also ordered

that all sentences would run concurrently.

The victim herself had submitted a complaint alleging that in 2013,

her mother had eloped with the respondent-accused leaving the victim and her

brother with their father. Her mother solemnized marriage with the respondent-

accused and from the said wedlock, a girl child was born. In October 2019, when

the father of the victim was not at home, her mother allured her and took her away

to the place where she was living with the respondent-accused. After maintaining

her properly for a few days, one day when her mother was not at home and had, in

fact, intentionally left her in the company of the respondent-accused, the

respondent-accused tried to sexually assault her. The victim was left back at the

house of her father by her mother after which the matter was reported to the police

and the FIR was registered.

The accused was tried and was convicted and sentenced in the manner

indicated in the preceding paragraphs.

Aggrieved by the inadequacy of sentence, the State has preferred the

present appeal.

We have heard Mr. Pravindra S. Chauhan, Sr. Additional AG,

Haryana, learned counsel for appellant-State of Haryana.

Sh. Chauhan has contended that the sentence imposed by the trial

Court is inadequate, keeping in view the nature of the offence, the age of the

victim and the manner in which the offence was committed. It has been contended

that in such serious offences, severe punishment should be imposed which can act

as a deterrent to such offenders and can be an eye opener for potential offenders.

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the

2 of 3

State of Haryana, but are unable to agree with the same. No doubt, the offences

committed by the victim who was a minor at the time of the incident do shock the

conscience of the common man. Such incidents, especially those committed by

ones own family members are increasing and they need to be curbed. One of the

methods of curbing such incidents is of course severe punishment.

In our considered opinion, the punishment imposed by the trial Court

is sufficiently severe keeping in view the nature of allegations and the offence

committed. It has to be borne in mind that fortunately for the victim, the offence

punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, was not

committed and the victim suffered an attempt to commit the said offence. This

alone would mean that the offence was not serious. However, keeping in view the

provisions of Section 511 IPC and 18 of the POCSO Act, the sentence imposed

upon the appellant is found to be adequate. The decision of the learned trial Court,

therefore, does not call for any interference, insofar as, the sentence imposed is

concerned.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we do not find

any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)                               ( VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
        JUDGE                                                JUDGE




02.12.2022
rekha sharma



                     Whether speaking/reasoned        :       Yes/No.
                     Whether reportable               :      Yes/No.




                                       3 of 3