Part 5 of the POCSO Act lists circumstances below which a penetrative sexual assault (rape) of a kid is taken into account an aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
As per the identical, penetrative sexual assault turns into aggravated penetrative sexual assault whether it is dedicated by a public servant or a police officer inside the limits of the police station or a member of the armed forces or safety forces or a hospital employees or jail employees.
Aggravated penetrative sexual assault attracts a minimal punishment of 20 years in jail and might lengthen to a life sentence.
Sengar was punished by the trial court docket for the mentioned offence on the bottom that he fell inside the definition of a ‘public servant’.
Nonetheless, the Division Bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidynathan Shankar of Excessive Courtroom held that he can’t be categorised as a public servant below Part 5(c) of the POCSO Act or Part 376(2)(b) of the IPC.
The Courtroom additional mentioned Sengar can’t come inside the 4 corners of Part 5(p) of the POCSO Act, which punishes an individual in “place of belief or authority” for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
“In view of the above, this Courtroom is of the prima facie view that for the aim of suspension of sentence, the Appellant can’t be introduced into the ambit of „aggravated penetrative sexual assault‟ below Part 5 of the POCSO Act, punishable below Part 6 of the POCSO Act, or below Part 376(2) of the IPC, which supplies for the punishment of imprisonment for the rest of his pure life,” the Courtroom noticed.
It added that within the absence of aggravated penetrative assault, the minimal punishment that an individual might be given below Part 4 of the POCSO is seven years, which Sengar has already undergone.
“Within the opinion of this Courtroom, at this stage, being glad that (i) offence below Part 5(c) of the POCSO Act shouldn’t be made out towards the Appellant on account of him not falling inside the definition of a “public servant”, (ii) solely an offence below Part 3 of the POCSO Act could be made out, and (iii) the truth that the Appellant has already undergone about 7 years and 5 months below incarceration, which is greater than minimal variety of years below Part 4 of the POCSO Act previous to its modification in 2019, this Courtroom is inclined to droop the sentence of the Appellant,” it mentioned.
Leave a Reply