news details |
|
|
| Court awards five years imprisonment to School van driver in POCSO | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Apr 29: Special Judge Fast Track Court POCSO YP Sharma awarded five years imprisonment to van driver of a school in POCSO Act.
According to the police case that accused Happy Kumar was working as a driver of school van of school Kidzee Roop Nagar, Jammu employed by Contractor Kuldeep Kumar PW No. 3 with vehicle (Van) bearing no. JK02BT-5207 engaged by school for carrying children from the school, Chinore, Roop Nagar, Jammu to their homes and vice versa. As per allegations based on the testimony of the victim (minor), age about 5 year, the alleged accused used to take her home from school and from home to school in his Van bearing no. JK02BT-5207 and during which time the victim child used to be sexually abused by the accused who allegedly used to touch her inappropriately places.
Special Judge Fast Track Court POCSO YP Sharma after hearing Special PP Anil Magotra for the UT whereas Adv Anmol Sharma for the accused observed that the evidence of the victim child is sufficient to hold that accused committed the offence of sexual assault upon the victim child by touching her vagina, cheeks, breast from time to time and last sexual assault was on 24.09.2019 but the victim child has not stated anything in her court deposition about inserting finger in her vagina by the accused though she stated the same in her 164 Cr.PC statement during investigation but since the said fact has not come in the deposition of child before the court, therefore, offence of penetrative sexual assault as defined under section 3 Clause (b) punishable interms of section 4 is not at all made out but definitely the offence of sexual assault as defined under section 7 read with section 9 clause (m) i.e. aggravated sexual assault stands fully proved from the deposition of main victim of sexual assault i.e. child of tender age which is also supported from the evidence of other supporting evidence of doctor, mother of victim, complainant, who put the police machinery into motion after the failure of the school authorities to take any action. The other relevant facts stands proved from the other witness Babli Maid, School Principal also corroborated the important facts about accused to be the driver and taking the victim to school from home and vice-versa.
The IO proved his investigation and supports the prosecution story. Hence, there is no doubt in the mind of the court about the commission of offence under section 9(m) by the accused read with section 7 of the POCSO Act which is punishable in-terms of section 10 of the POCSO Act. Hence, accused is convicted for commission of offence under section 9 (m) read with section 7 punishable interms of section 10 of the POCSO Act.
Court further observed that 12. In the case in hand, convict has been found to have committed the offence of aggravated sexual assault punishable with maximum punishment of seven years. Similarly, the offence is against the society and committed against the minor victim of tender age of about five years and perhaps it is the first reported case of a school van driver. Therefore, message has to go to all the school van drivers and deterrence is need of the hour but at the same time, it has to be kept in mind that the allegation against the petitioner is of touching the minor child inappropriately and serious charge of penetrative sexual assault could not be proved for want of evidence from the victim. The accused though found to have committed the offence against a minor child but he is father of one minor girl and has liability of his parents besides his wife and he is the only earning member of the family. Hence considering all these factors and mitigating circumstances projected by the accused and he being first time offender, keeping in mind the totality of the circumstances, the convict Happy Kumar is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment of six months, Court ordered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
