9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... committed outside India; and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India. As the facts and circumstances of the case indicate, a part of the offence was definitely committed on the soil of this country and as such going by the normal principles the offence could be looked into and tried by Indian courts. Since the offence was not committed in its entirety, outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 of the Code and there was no necessity of any sanction as mandated by the proviso to Section 188. Travel by victim - HELD THAT:- It is true that the victim had traveled on her own from Kathmandu to Atariya. However, the evidence on record completely establishes that she was lured into coming to India. The offences alleged against the Appellant were thus rightly invoked and fully substantiated. Offence would come Under Section 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code due to age of the victim beyond 18 years of age - HELD THAT:- The evidence on record is absolutely clear that the age of the victim was below 18 years of age. The medical board had not only done the radiological tests but had also undertaken dental test on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... snacks towards the eastern side of Sharda Barrage. The name of the girl was ascertained. She disclosed her name "X X X" Identity of the prosecutrix/victim is not being disclosed. R/o Village Koteshwar, District Kathmandu, Nepal, aged about 15 years. The investigation was carried out by maintaining all decency through Meera Sauda, who was well conversant with Hindi and Nepali languages. She disclosed to the police party that on 10.04.2015, she came all alone to see her uncle namely Arjun Sharma, who was a teacher in Lamki (Nepal). On 11.04.2015 at about 10:00 AM, she was having ice-cream from a cart at Atariya Bus stand. A boy came and stood by her side. He also started having the ice-cream. He tried to entice her. He allured her that he would take her to Banbasa in India where she can do shopping. They would stay in a hotel at Banbasa and in the morning, he would send her back to Atariya, Nepal. She trusted him. The boy brought her from Atariya, Nepal to Mahendra Nagar. He started pressing her breast in the bus. She told him not to do so. Thereafter, at Mahendra Nagar, he made her to sit on a horse cart, which was going towards India. They reached Banbasa bridge at about 13:45 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eera Singh were also present. We all were carrying out checking. The gate for the entry to Nepal was closed. It was about 1:00 or 1½ pm. It was day time. We reached a little towards Nepal. Some person came to meet Manju Pandey and told that one girl is standing near the cart. We all went near to the said chaat stall. The chaat cart was in front towards of the custom office. I know Nepalese language. One girl about 14-15 years old was standing near the chaat cart. When I asked the name and address of the said girl in Nepalese language then she told her name is "X X X" and she is resident of Koteshwar, Kathmandu. And she told that on 10.04.2015 she was coming to Lamki in a bus from Kathmandu (Nepal) to meet her uncle and when she reached Atariya she was standing and having ice-cream from a cart and then she met with a boy who asked her to come to Banbasa, and he would make her roaming and shopping and would send her back to Atariya. Thereafter we both boarded on a bus to Mahindra Nagar from there. Then we reached Mahindra Nagar. That boy fed me food in Mahindra Nagar. Thereafter we sat on a horse cart to India from Mahindra Nagar bus stand. When we reached towards Nepal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Nagar which is document No. 5Ka/19, one supplementary report with regard to the age of "X X X" was prepared by me which is document No. 5Ka/22. On which I found the age of "X X X" to be about 17 years old. On which, I identify my handwriting and signature and the signature of SI Meenakshi Nautiyal. It is marked as exhibit Ka-6. 6. The Trial Court having acquitted the Appellant of the charges levelled against him, the State of Uttarakhand preferred the Government Appeal No. 139 of 2016 challenging the acquittal. 7. After considering the material on record and the rival submissions, the High Court found that the Trial Court had not considered the material evidence on record. Having analyzed the reasons which had weighed with the Trial Court, the High Court found that the decision of the Trial Court was perverse and the case of the prosecution deserved to be accepted. Allowing the appeal vide its judgment under appeal, the High Court set-aside the order of acquittal and convicted the Appellant of the offences punishable Under Sections 363, 366-B, 370(4) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and Under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. He was awarded substantive sentence of 7 years imprisonm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India; and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India. 14. As the facts and circumstances of the case indicate, a part of the offence was definitely committed on the soil of this country and as such going by the normal principles the offence could be looked into and tried by Indian courts. Since the offence was not committed in its entirety, outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 of the Code and there was no necessity of any sanction as mandated by the proviso to Section 188. We, therefore, reject the first submission advanced by Mr. Sharma. 15. Coming to the second submission, it is true that the victim had traveled on her own from Kathmandu to Atariya. However, the evidence on record completely establishes that she was lured into coming to India. The offences alleged against the Appellant were thus rightly invoked and fully substantiated. 16. As regards the third submission, the evidence on record is absolutely clear that the age of the victim was below 18 years of age. The medical board had not only done the radiological tests but had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
