Is mere saying a minor, 'come, come',

Is mere saying a minor, 'come, come',

In this case, the complainant is the mother of the victim. The victim used to go to school and also used to go for private tuition.

However, the accused came when the minor victim girl was proceeding towards the private tuition on a bicycle, the accused came from the backside and he had made dirty sounds such as “Aaja Aaja” and that boy took a round around her & thus she proceeded towards her backside.

The charge came to be framed against the accused u/s 354D of the IPC along with 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The issues for consideration before the bench were: Does the prosecution prove that the accused followed the girl and made attempt repeatedly by saying that ‘आजज आजज’, despite a clear indication of disinterest by a minor girl and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 354D of The I.P.C.?

Does the prosecution further prove that the accused when the informant and her husband asked him as to why you are stalking the girl by making a gesture & uttering the words such as ‘आजज आजज’ and committed sexual harassment to the minor girl and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 12 of The POCSO, Act, 2012?

The Court observed that minor discrepancies may come but the said can not be wiped out the whole versions of the witnesses & the case of the prosecution on merit but the court should ignore such discrepancies.

The bench opined that “the prosecution has rightly proved that the accused has followed the minor victim girl and made attempt repeatedly by saying that ‘आजज आजज’ despite a clear indication of her disinterest and sexually harassed within the perview of the provision laid down u/s 354D of the Indian Penal Code along with 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012”

The Court noted that no doubt, the court should have to take the aggravating as well as mitigating circumstances into consideration while awarding the punishment.

But the accused has committed the offence wherein he was stalking by following & attempting to contact a minor victim girl repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by the said victim.

The bench stated that the accused is aged about 32 years & has a wife & 03 years old daughter but the same can not be the mitigating circumstances as the offences committed by the accused is neither under duress nor on the provocation on the part of the victim.

The accused committed such offences with the victim by which the accused is not entitled to the lenient view & thus the accused is not entitled to the benefit of the provisions laid down under The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The Court imposed the sentences to the accused as provided u/s 354D of the IPC along with 12 of the POSCO Act, 2012.

The bench convicted the accused u/s 235(2) of The Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s 354D of IPC.

Dr. Ajay Kummar Pandey