The convicts under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) 2012 cannot avail the benefits under the Probation of Offenders Act 1958, the Calcutta High Court observed while upholding a three-year jail term given to an appellant for an act of pawing at a girl when she was walking with her mother.
Justice Siddharta Roy Chowdhary upheld the conviction and sentence while relying on the testimony submitted by the victim girl.
The Court observed that the testimony given by the victim to the Magistrate and the trial court was found to be consistent.
The Court further said, “There is nothing to impeach her credibility. When a ring of truth is found in what has been stayed by the victim girl before the learned Trial Court, non-examination of the victim girl by police is of no consequence.“
The Court rejected pleas to offer the benefit of probation to the appellant instead of jail.
The appellant’s counsel told the Court that when the alleged incident took place, the appellant was only a teenager and that he has become a responsible young man who works for the bread & butter of his family.
Further, he also emphasized that the appellant had no criminal background. It was also urged to the Court to not to subject him to jail as it might cause deleterious effects for life.
The Court also noted that since the POCSO Act was a special law for children, the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be come into its effect. In this context, the Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Superintendent, Central Excise v. Bahubali, and State v. Ratan Lal Arora.
The High Court held, “Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, therefore cannot be made applicable in this case in derogation of such special enactment of 2012.”
The case originated from an incident that took place in 2014. The Court was told that the appellant had pawed at the victim girl and touched her breast while she was walking on a footpath with her mother.
As soon as the incident took place, the girl screamed and the body was caught.
Soon, the police arrived and registered a case against the boy under Section 354A (Sexual Harassment) of the Indian Penal Code with Section 8 (Sexual Assault) of the POCSO Act.
The counsel of the appellant argued that since the incident took place in a crowded area, it’s possible that it could have happened accidentally or unknowingly.
The Court, however, noted that the appellant, after getting caught, did not utter a word to oppose the offence he had committed.
The Court also rejected the argument that the medical examination of the girl had not taken place.
The Court further said, “In a case of Section 8 of the POCSO Act examination of a doctor is not at all required in the given facts and circumstances.“
Such factors led the Court to uphold the appellant’s conviction and sentence.
Source: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/probation-of-offenders-act-not-applicable-pocso-act-cases-calcutta-high-court