Savvy Thakur
Published on: 05 December 2022 at 22:08 IST
On the basis of good behavior, the Bombay High Court recently reduced the sentence of a former police officer who was found guilty of sexually assaulting a minor boy.
Justice Sarang V. Kotwal made the observation while hearing an appeal from a conviction that the appellant had already been in prison for longer than the minimum sentence under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) at the time of the offense. Prior to that, the appellant had been an undertrial prisoner.
“The applicant has been detained for over eight years. He was held without trial for a significant amount of time. He helped his fellow inmates and received a number of certificates for his good behavior. At the time of the crime, seven years was the minimum sentence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. He has served a sentence that is longer than the minimum of one year. His direct in the prison is good”, the court noticed.
However, due to “clinching” DNA and medical evidence, the court upheld the conviction.
In 2018, the appellant was found guilty under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Sections 377 (unnatural offenses) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. He received a harsh 10-year sentence that included a fine. He had been a constable who was suspended from a help a lot of before the episode of this case.
The prosecution argued that the 17-year-old victim boy went to his father’s house in Wadala after having a fight with his brother. On the way, the litigant offered him a lift and afterward took him to a disconnected spot on the patio of a structure and serious the offense.
In addition, he gave the child his phone number and dropped him off near the house of his father. The victim informed his father, and the Sion police station filed a report.
The victim’s anal injuries, according to the medical examiner, occurred within 24 hours of the examination and were consistent with the victim’s account of the incident.
The DNA report stated that the appellant’s blood sample and the DNA of the semen taken from the victim’s clothes are identical. As a result, it was established with absolute certainty that the appellant’s semen was found on the victim’s underwear.
While admitting the remainder of the victim’s account, the appellant denied the offense. He claimed that the appellant had declined the victim’s birthday invitation because of his busy schedule.
As a result, the appellant provided his phone number to him. He claimed to be the president of a political party in the Wadala constituency, and he said that a rival member who wanted to run for the same seat in 2014 had made up lies about him.
Advocate Ashish Satpute for the appellant said that the clothes the police took from the victim were sent to be checked a month later, so they could play with them. He argued that the prosecution has not demonstrated that a specific procedure and kit for collecting blood samples for DNA testing were followed.
Consequently, the DNA report couldn’t be utilized against the blamed regardless of whether it was supporting the indictment’s case.
The DNA report, according to the court, is one of the most persuasive pieces of evidence and should not be ignored. The defense does not explain how the victim’s underwear was stained with the appellant’s semen.
The appellant’s claim that his sperm was taken from the police station was rejected by the court because he never complained about it before or during the trial. The identification forms that the prosecution provided for the purpose of drawing blood samples for the DNA test were not contested by the defense.
As a result, the court decided that the prosecution had made a strong enough case that the blood samples of the victim and the appellant were sent to the right place for a DNA test, which produced the DNA report, which is conclusive evidence.
The court stated that the medical evidence sufficiently supports the victim’s testimony. As a result, the court decided that the prosecution had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, the court noted that the appellant’s behavior in the jail has been satisfactory and that he has been in custody for more than eight years.
As a result, it reduced the overall sentence to the time he has already spent in prison.