Back
G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
Awadhesh Kumar Biswas – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J.—The appeal is filed challenging the order of conviction and judgment dated 26.04.2004 in Sessions Trial No. 36 of 1996 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. V, Katihar wherein the appellant was found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. However, the appellant was acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. This Court intends to refer the victim as “X” as her identity shall not be disclosed in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nipuna Saxena vs. Union of India reported in (2019) 2 SCC 70 [: 2019 (1) BLJ 1 (SC)]. It is relevant to mention that the trial court has not followed the directions of the Apex Court and the judgment reveals that the name of the victim was disclosed.
3. The brief fact of the case of the prosecution is that the victim “X” is the informant who was in a love relationship with the accused/appellant Awadhesh Kumar Biswas for about two years prior to 24.05.199
(1) Penetrative sexual assault on girl child – Evidence of approximate age of victim would not be sufficient to any conclusion about exact age of victim.(2) Medical examination of accused of rape is ....
The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act requires foundational facts to be established; mere reliance on medical evidence without corroboration is insufficient for conviction.
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence to establish the commission of offenses, especially in cases involving serious allegations such as rape,....
The prosecution must prove foundational facts, including the victim's age, to establish guilt under POCSO Act; discrepancies in evidence warrant acquittal.
The presumption under the POCSO Act is rebuttable and requires foundational facts to be established beyond reasonable doubt for conviction.
The court affirmed that the testimony of a child victim, supported by medical evidence, is sufficient for conviction under the POCSO Act, even in the presence of a negative DNA report regarding pater....
The prosecution must prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt; reliance solely on the victim's testimony is insufficient if 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
