Back
JITENDRA KUMAR
Rajendra Singh, Son of Ramji Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2022 and 26.11.2022, respectively passed by Ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIth-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Samastipur in connection with T.R. No. 118 of 2022/R.N. No. 02/2014, arising out of Samastipur (Rail) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2014, whereby the sole appellant has been found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and in default to pay the fine, to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment for three months and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 40,000/- under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and in default to pay the fine, to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment of six months. No separate sentence has been passed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in view of the provision of Section 42 of the POCSO Act. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. The FIR bearing Samastipur (Rail) P.
The prosecution must prove foundational facts, including the victim's age and the occurrence of the alleged crime, beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the POCSO Act.
The prosecution must prove foundational facts of age and sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt, even with statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act.
The prosecution must prove foundational facts, including the victim's age, beyond reasonable doubt, even under statutory presumptions of the POCSO Act.
The prosecution must prove the victim's age as below 18 for POCSO applicability; failure to do so leads to acquittal.
The victim's testimony, if found reliable, can form the sole basis for conviction under the POCSO Act, and legal presumption against the accused places the burden of rebuttal on the defense.
The court held that discrepancies in the victim's testimony and lack of corroborating evidence created reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
The prosecution failed to establish the victim's age as a child under the POCSO Act, leading to the quashing of the conviction due to insufficient evidence and credibility issues.
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
