Back
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Vikas Kumar Sah, Son of Banke Bihari Sah – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Dhirendra Nath Jha, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, the learned APP for the State.
2. The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 363, 366A of the Indina Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 by judgment dated 16.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, -I-cum-Special Judge, (POCSO), Bhagalpur in G.R. Case No. 1566/17 arising out of Sanhaula P.S. Case No. 55/2017. By order dated 26.09.2019, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-for the offence under Section 363 IPC; RI for five years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-for the offence under Section 366-A IPC and RI for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-for the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The victim, a girl of less than eighteen years and as claimed by her mother to be fifteen years, is said to have been abducted by the appellant who was her tutor for sometime. She came back within two days and appears to have made a statement before the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur, who
The prosecution failed to prove the victim's age and the occurrence of sexual intercourse, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
(1) Once prosecution failed to prove that victim was below 18 years of age, evidence of her consent, assumes importance.(2) There is no difference as regards minority between child in conflict with l....
The conviction under Section 363 IPC for taking a minor without consent is affirmed, despite inconsistencies in witness statements regarding alleged misconduct.
The conviction of a minor for kidnapping and repetitive rape is upheld when credible evidence establishes the victim's minority and the accused's actions contravene statutory provisions regarding chi....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the POCSO Act and IPC; mere age of the victim is insufficient without credible evidence.
The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the minor status of the victim beyond a reasonable doubt, undermining the conviction under the POCSO Act.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in cases where the victim's statements are inconsistent and unsupported by corroborative evidence.
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
