Back
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Ajay Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This Court had issued notice to the informant-respondent no. 2. Notice has been validly served. Respondent no. 2 has entered appearance through her Advocate but no one has appeared on her behalf to oppose the appeal.
3. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 05.09.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 07.09.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI cum Special Judge, POCSO, Bhojpur, Ara (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial Court’) in POCSO Case No. 112 of 2020 arising out of Ara Mahila P.S. Case No. 100/2020.
4. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court has been pleased to hold the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354B, 376A, 376B of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and under Section ‘6’ of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’). He has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three y
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in sexual offences; inconsistent statements and lack of evidence weaken claims against the accused.
(1) Level of integrity and capability expected of police officers investigating into offences against women and children, especially those under POCSO Act, are very high.(2) Judge does not preside ov....
The court affirmed that the sole testimony of a child victim can suffice for conviction in sexual assault cases if found credible, despite minor inconsistencies in other testimonies.
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....
The prosecution's burden was not met due to substantial inconsistencies in witness testimonies; thus, a conviction was unjustified.
The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish foundational aspects of the alleged sexual assault, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
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
