Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has recently rejected a revision application filed by the mother of the victim girl, which sought the enhancement of the sentence awarded to a man who was convicted of stalking a minor.

The single-judge bench of the high court, comprising Justice Bharathi Dangre, was hearing a revision plea filed by the mother of the victim. The 15-year-old daughter had complained about a 30-year-old man stalking her.

The man was convicted by the Extra Joint Special POCSO Judge for committing an offence under Section 354A of the IPC, along with Section 12 (Sexual Harassment) of The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The POCSO court found that on a particular day, the man had followed her, held her hand, and expressed his feelings towards her. Upon conviction, the special court sentenced the man to one week of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 3000.

The Special Court also noted that an offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act was established. However, the court invoked Section 42 of the POCSO Act, which permits the court to award punishment prescribed in the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

As a result, the judge did not impose a separate sentence for the offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

The Special judge's order also mentioned a prior non-cognizable complaint against the victim girl's family in an attempt to establish enmity.

The high court stated that the imposition of the sentence lies within the discretion of the judge, and since the man had already served his imprisonment and paid the fine, the bench found no reason to interfere with the judgment of the special court.

“However, since the imposition of the sentence is a discretion of the Judge and since he deemed it appropriate to sentence the accused to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one week and it is informed that he has already undergone the sentence and has also paid the fine amount, until and unless some apparent perversity is to be found in the impugned order, I do not see any reason to interfere and tinkle with it,” the order reads.

Case title: Jyoti Daware & Anr vs State of Maharashtra