AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Susmita Dey – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.—This appeal filed by the appellant is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th March, 2019, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sealdah in Special Case no. 32 of 2017, arising out of Ultodanga Women P.S. Case no. 9 dated 18.07.2017, whereby, the learned Court below was pleased to acquit the Respondent herein from the charge under section 10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short POCSO Act).
2. Prosecution case in brief is that the informant is the student of class VIII and on 17th July, 2017, she had gone to attend the private tuition class of the Respondent at his residence when the Respondent/accused committed sexual assault upon the said victim girl /informant who is aged about 14 years. The relevant portion of the first information report may be reproduced below:—
“Yesterday that is on 17.7.2017 I had gone to Sir to tuition at about 7:10/7:15 with my mother. On that day seven of us were there. All our guardians take us to the tuition. Some guardians wait the terrace or the staircase. Last night at about 9.10 at night all of us were released. In the place of study that is in the
State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384. (Para 9) – Relied.
Attorney General for India vs. Satish (2022) 5 SCC 545. (Para 10) – Relied.
State of Maharashtra vs. Chandra Prakash Kewalchand Jain
State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raghubir Singh (1993) 2 SCC 622. (Para 12) – Relied.
Wahid Khan vs. State of M.P. (2010) 2 SCC 9 AIR 1952 SC 54. (Para 12) – Relied.
Phool Sing vs. State of M.P. (2022) 2 SCC 74. (Para 12) – Relied.
State of U.P. vs. Ramesh Prasad Mishra (1996) 10 SCC 360. (Para 16) – Relied.
Attorney General of India vs. Satish
State of Maharashtra vs. Chandra Prakash Jain
State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raghubir Singh (1993) 2 SCC 622. (Para 33) – Relied.
Rameshwar vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54. (Para 33) – Relied.
Phool Singh vs. State of M.P. (2022) 2 SCC 74. (Para 33) – Relied.
Tota Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.