Supreme Court: While considering the instant petition challenging Bombay High Court’s decision to upholding the conviction of the petitioner (convict) under 6 of the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) thereby sentencing him to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment; the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.,* dismissed the petition finding no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Background and Legal Trajectory:
Prosecution was launched by setting up a case that victim, a 6-year-old girl, was sexually assaulted by the convict by luring her with chocolate and edibles on 13-01-2020 i.e. while she was put up with her old great grandfather. The victim informed her mother, and she was thereafter taken for medical examination which revealed sexual assault.
Mother of victim lodged report with Ahmedpur Police Station on the strength of which crime was registered, and it was duly investigated by the Police, who on completion of investigation, chargesheeted the convict.
The matter was brought before the Special Judge for trial. Upon completion of trial, the accused was convicted for offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and pay fine of Rs 25,000. The Trial Court did not award any separate sentence to the convict under 376(3), 377, 506 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act.
Aggrieved with the afore-stated order by the Special Judge, the convict appealed before Bombay High Court. However, the single Judge Bench of Abhay S. Waghwase, J., held that victim’s evidence found support from medical evidence; therefore, charges against the convict were cogently brought home by the prosecution. After going through the judgment of the Trial Court, the High Court was satisfied that findings were supported by sound reasons. Therefore, the convict’s appeal was dismissed.
Once again being aggrieved with the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court, the convict approached the Supreme Court. However, the Bench of Nagarathna and SC Sharma, JJ., did not find any reason to interfere with the either the decision of the Trial Court or the High Court.
[Sachin v. State of Maharashtra, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 24169/2025, decided on 26-5-2025]
*Partial Court Working Days Bench
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Priyanka R. Deshpande, AOR
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
