Back
BIRENDRA KUMAR
Deepak Mahto @ Deepak Kumar, Son of Gudar Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The sole appellant Deepak Mahto was charged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act in connection with Inarwa P.S. Case No. 43 of 2018 corresponding to CIS No. 218 of 2018. However the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 18 of the POCSO Act for the reason that the trial Judge was of the view that no case of aggravated penetrative sexual assault was made out rather a case of attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault was proved against the appellant. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge, POCSO, West Champaran at Bettiah sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2 lacs. In default of payment of fine, two years further imprisonment was ordered. Out of the aforesaid fine amount, Rs.1 lac was ordered to go to the victim. The judgment of conviction dated 12.06.2019 and order of sentence dated 15.06.2019 are under challenge in this appeal.
2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the written report (Ext.2) in the pen of Isteyaq is that the prosecutrix aged about 13 years was in her house in village-Khamhiya, P.S.-Inarwa, District-West Champaran. On 16.06.
The need for strong, compelling, and reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the accused in a criminal case, and the distinction between the trial of Sessions case and the trial held before the Judic....
Section 157 of Evidence Act makes it clear that a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC can be relied upon for purpose of corroborating statements made by witnesses in committal court or even to ....
The conviction under Section 376 was set aside due to lack of substantive evidence, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases.
The testimony of a victim, particularly a minor or disabled, can substantiate a conviction in sexual assault cases without needing corroboration, provided it is credible and consistent.
The prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt under the POCSO Act due to lack of credible evidence and the recantation of the key witness.
Conviction under POCSO can only rely on substantive evidence; retracted statements are insufficient for proving guilt.
The court ruled that without credible evidence or reliable testimony, suspicion alone cannot support a conviction under the POCSO Act.
Conviction under POCSO Act cannot be sustained on the basis of unreliable witness testimonies, especially when witnesses turn hostile and fail to corroborate the prosecution's case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
