In a criminal appeal filed before the Allahabad High Court against the judgment and order dated 06-03-2024 by Special Judge, Exclusive Court (POCSO Act), Maharajganj, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced, a Division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra-I set aside the impugned judgment and order while directing the appellant, who was in jail, to be set free.
On 22-02-2021, the appellant enticed away the informant’s 18-year-old daughter with the intention to marry her. The daughter returned to her house on 06-08-2021, stating that the appellant had refused to marry her and that she could not approach the police earlier because of shame. After the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 323,363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
The appellant stated that the case had been made on false grounds due to pre-existing enmity between the parties. He stated that another case was also pending between the parties under Sections 354-A, 504, and 506 of the IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The appellant asserted that the informant is a habitual litigant who extracts money by lodging false cases against different persons.
The informant stated that on 22-02-2021, her 17-year-old daughter was enticed by the appellant on a false promise of marriage. She stated that her daughter told her that the appellant took her to Bangalore, where he had a physical relationship with her and kept her as a wife. She alleged that when she came to know that her daughter had become pregnant, she went to the appellant’s parents, who pushed the daughter, saying that she could not live in their house as she was from a lower caste. The daughter suffered a miscarriage.
The Court stated that the Trial Court had failed to consider the evidence while passing the impugned judgment and order. It was found that the age certificate established the daughter’s age as 20 years as of 19-08-2021.
The Court held that the daughter was a major and had eloped from her house. Hence, it was said that she could not be said to have been abducted for forcible marriage. The Court stated that the daughter had lived with the appellant in a locality full of other houses for 6 months and therefore, the appellant’s conviction under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC was absolutely unwarranted as per law.
Further, it was said that if the victim was a major, the appellant’s conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was unjustified, and his conviction under Section 376 of the IPC was also improper since the victim was a major who had a consenting relationship with the appellant for six years. Noting the facts of the case, the Court stated that the punishment under Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act was not an independent provision and would be applicable only when the accused is punished with imprisonment of 10 years or more under the provisions of the IPC. The sentence under Section 323 of the IPC was also held to be unwarranted since the role of pushing the victim had been assigned to the appellant’s family members.
The Court stated that the present case was a classic example of the youth’s tendency to live together without solemnization of marriage, influenced by Western ideas. It was said that after such relationships fail, men are convicted when reliance is placed on laws made when the concept of live-in was not in existence.
Thus, the impugned judgment and order were set aside, and the appellant was directed to be set free while allowing the criminal appeal.
Appearances:
For Appellant(s) – Mr. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Mr. Manu Sharma, Mr. Randhir Jain, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Keshari
For Respondent(s) – Mr. Ashish Pandey (GA)
