Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Upendra Singh, Son of Arjun Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, j.
1.Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also perused the trial court's records.
2. Notice has been served upon the informant/victim but no one has appeared on behalf of her to contest the appeal.
3. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 15.07.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 21.07.2022 (hereinafter called the ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Saran at Chapra (hereinafter called ‘the learned trial court’) in ST POCSO No. 99 of 2019 arising out of Garkha P.S. Case No. 554 of 2019.
4. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’). By the impugned order, the appellants have been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of
In sexual assault cases under the POCSO Act, the prosecution must provide overwhelming evidence beyond the victim's testimony, which must be credible and consistent.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and evidence must be corroborated with medical evidence and other reliable sources.
The prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in the victim's testimony and lack of corroborative medical evidence.
The prosecution must prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act does not relieve it of this burden.
The conviction for rape was upheld based on the victim's reliable testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, illustrating criteria for a 'sterling witness'.
The prosecution must prove foundational facts, including the victim's age, to establish guilt under POCSO Act; discrepancies in evidence warrant acquittal.
The court upheld the conviction under the POCSO Act based on strong testimonial and medical evidence, affirming that negative DNA results do not undermine 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
