ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JITENDRA KUMAR
Mannu @ Saddam @ Md. Mannu Sadam, S/o. Islam Khalifa @ Md. Eslam – 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 12.07.2021 and 19.07.2021 respectively passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-VIII-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Aurangabad, Bihar, in G.R. No. 72 of 2018, C.I.S. No. 72 of 2018 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 29 of 2018, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 342 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. From perusal of the impugned order of sentence, it transpires that in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the Trial Court has sentenced the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-and in case of default to pay the fine, he has been further directed to undergo additional simple imprisonment for six months. Under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant has been directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in case of default to pay the fine, to unde
Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana
Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh & Ors
Mano Dutt and another Vs. State of UP
Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra
Pulicherla Nagaraju Vs. State of A.P.
Harbans Kaur Vs. State of Haryana
Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of AP
Piara Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 452C. Muniappan & others Vs. State of T.N.
State of U.P. Vs. Krishan Master
Appabhai & Anr. Vs. State of Gujrat
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dal Singh
Smt. Shamim Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi)
S. Govidaarju Vs. State of Karnataka
Narotam Singh vs. State Of Punjab And Anr. (AIR 1978 SC 1542)
The prosecution must prove the victim's age as below 18 for POCSO applicability; failure to do so leads to acquittal.
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 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 and the occurrence of the alleged crime, beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the POCSO Act.
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.
Victim testimony in sexual assault cases must be credible and consistent; considerable contradictions undermine prosecution's case under the POCSO Act.
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.