Crl. A. No. 05 of 2016. Case: Bishal Lamgadey Vs State of Sikkim. Sikkim High Court
| Case Number | Crl. A. No. 05 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Jorgay Namka, Legal Aid Counsel and For Respondents: Karma Thinlay Namgyal, Additional Public Prosecutor, S.K. Chettri and Pollin Rai, Assistant Public Prosecutors |
| Judges | Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 20(2); Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 166A, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 370, 370A, 375, 376, 376(2)(i), 376A, 376C, 376D, 376E, 450, 509, 71; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4, 42 |
| Judgement Date | April 01, 2016 |
| Court | Sikkim High Court |
Judgment:
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
-
By filing this Appeal, the Appellant assails the Judgment and Sentence dated 11.12.2015 of the Court of Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter 'POCSO'), East Sikkim at Gangtok, in S.T.(POCSO) Case No. 17 of 2014 and prays therein that the impugned Judgment and Order be set aside.
-
Although, while filing the Appeal, the grounds averred thereto were that the Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances and the documentary evidence on record and reached an erroneous finding and hence the above prayer, however, while placing his verbal arguments before this Court, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that he had no quarrel with the impugned Judgment, but he only sought to assail the Sentences meted out since imprisonment was imposed both under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter 'IPC') and under Section 4 of the POCSO, for the offence of rape.
-
There being no challenge to the Judgment, therefore, the facts are not discussed in detail, suffice it to say that the Appellant, a man of 40 years, was found guilty of having sexually assaulted a minor Victim of 14 years and was consequently convicted and sentenced as detailed in the impugned Order on Sentence which reads as follows;
(i) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 450 IPC. In default of the payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for six months under Section 450 IPC.
(ii) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC. In default of the payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for six months under Section 376(2)(i) IPC.
(iii) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. In default of the payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.
-
It was submitted by Learned Counsel for the Appellant that he has no objection to the Sentence under Section 450 of the IPC, but urges that the Sentence under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC, be set aside as the Appellant was sentenced twice over for the same offence i.e. under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 4 of POCSO, both of which pertain to sexual assault and is impermissible in Law. That, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial