Conviction Under POCSO and IPC: Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Rape Case

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on the appeal case Manoj Mishra @ Chhotkau v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, which arose from Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2021. The case pertained to the conviction of the appellant under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). The judgment, delivered on October 8, 2021, by M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, resulted in a modification of the charges and sentencing imposed by the lower courts.

The appellant had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Court and Special Judge POCSO Act, Bahraich, for offenses including kidnapping, rape, and criminal intimidation. The conviction was subsequently upheld by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The Supreme Court, while affirming the conviction under certain sections, modified the sentence under Section 376 IPC and set aside the conviction under Section 376-D IPC, which deals with gang rape.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a complaint filed on August 9, 2013, by the father of the prosecutrix. He alleged that one Ramasre alias Siri had lured his 14-year-old daughter away. The complaint also implicated Raksharam, Nangodiya, and the appellant, Manoj Kumar alias Chhotkau, for aiding in the act. The FIR was registered under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, and after investigation, the charge sheet included Sections 376, 506 IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the POCSO Act.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/cheque-dishonour-case-supreme-court-upholds-criminal-proceedings-in-ashutosh-ashok-parasrampuriya-v-m-s-gharkul-industries-pvt-ltd/

Petitioner’s Arguments

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the conviction was erroneous due to inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecutrix and her parents. He highlighted contradictions in the initiation of the complaint and the various statements made by the victim. It was contended that:

• The prosecutrix’s statements about her age and the nature of the incident were inconsistent.
• The father’s complaint initially stated she had eloped but later accused the appellant of abduction and rape.
• The prosecutrix, in her statement, indicated that she was pregnant but disclosed this fact only when she was four months pregnant.
• There was no direct evidence to prove gang rape, and the charge under Section 376-D IPC was not sustainable.

Respondent’s Arguments

The standing counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh countered that:

• The trial court and High Court had correctly evaluated the evidence.
• The prosecutrix’s father and mother, examined as PW-1 and PW-2, and the victim herself, examined as PW-3, provided credible testimony.
• Medical reports confirmed the victim was pregnant, supporting the rape charge.
• Since the prosecutrix was below 18 years, any claim of consensual relations was not legally valid.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

After reviewing the evidence and legal submissions, the Supreme Court made the following observations:

• The victim’s age was disputed, but medical reports suggested she was between 16-17 years.
• While contradictions existed in statements, they were not substantial enough to dismiss the charges.
• The charge of gang rape under Section 376-D IPC was not supported by conclusive evidence.
• The conviction under Sections 363, 366 IPC, and Section 4 of the POCSO Act was upheld.
• The sentence under Section 506 IPC was set aside due to a lack of corroborative evidence.

Key Extract from the Judgment:

“It is difficult to comprehend the circumstances in which the charge of rape and enticement against the accused-appellant cannot be leveled. The reason given by the trial court for conviction of the appellant is sufficient enough to hold him guilty.”

Final Verdict

• The appellant’s conviction was modified from Section 376-D IPC (gang rape) to Section 376 IPC (rape).
• The sentence for kidnapping and POCSO Act violations was upheld.
• The appellant had already served over eight years in custody, which was deemed sufficient punishment.
• The appellant was ordered to be released upon payment of the fine, provided he was not required to be detained in any other case.

This case underscores the importance of thorough judicial scrutiny in cases involving sexual offenses, ensuring that legal provisions are applied correctly while upholding the principles of justice.

Petitioner Name: Manoj Mishra @ Chhotkau.
Respondent Name: The State of Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 08-10-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: manoj-mishra-@-chhot-vs-the-state-of-uttar-p-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-08-10-2021.pdf