Conviction under Section 6 of POCSO Act reduced to Section 9(m); Sentencing modified to seven years rigorous imprisonment.
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has modified the conviction of Dr. Madhu Shudhan Dutto, initially sentenced under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha presided over the case and concluded that the evidence did not support the claim of penetrative sexual assault, leading to a reclassification of the offence under Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, concerning aggravated sexual assault.
The appellant, Dr. Dutto, was originally sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment by the Special Court under the POCSO Act. However, upon review, the High Court found that the evidence substantiated only the lesser charge of aggravated sexual assault, reducing the sentence to a maximum of seven years rigorous imprisonment, with a fine, as stipulated under Section 10 of the Act.
The case stems from an incident on June 28, 2016, where Dr. Dutto was accused of wrongfully confining and sexually assaulting a nine-year-old girl at his clinic. The prosecution initially charged Dr. Dutto under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, indicating penetrative sexual assault. However, the High Court found inconsistencies and a lack of evidence for penetration, noting that the act involved rubbing rather than penetration, thus fitting the criteria of aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m).
The court emphasized the misuse of the position of trust by Dr. Dutto, who was in a role of authority as a doctor. Despite the reduction in charges, the court decided against leniency due to the breach of trust involved, especially considering the victim's age and the accused's position.
The judgment also addressed procedural issues, such as the admissibility of the Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) due to the unavailability of the examining doctor, Dr. M. Sandeep. The court accepted the MLC as evidence under Section 32(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as the handwriting and signature were verified by a colleague familiar with Dr. Sandeep's credentials.
The High Court also directed the Delhi State Legal Service Authority to expedite the disbursement of compensation to the victim, highlighting the importance of timely victim support in such cases.
Bottom Line:
Conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act modified to Section 9(m) due to lack of evidence for penetrative sexual assault. Sentencing reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sections 6, 9(m), 10; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 32(2), 47, 67; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 161, 162, 164, 313, 232; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 342.
Madhu Shudhan Dutto v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2838593
