Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, SONI SHRIVASTAVA
xxxxxxx C/o Krishna Kumar Pandit – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Heard Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Despite valid service of notice on respondent no. 2, no one has entered appearance on her behalf to oppose this appeal.
3. The sole appellant in this case is seeking setting aside of the judgment of conviction dated 18.05.2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 20.05.2023 (in short called the ‘impugned order’), passed by the Child Court-cum-1st Additional Sessions Judge, Banka (in short ‘learned trial court’) in POCSO Case No.211 of 2020 (arising out of Belhar P.S. Case No. 211 of 2020) dated 18.06.2020, registered for the offences alleged under Sections 376, 506/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’).
4. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has been pleased to convict the appellant for the offences under Section 376 of IPC and Section 5(j) (ii)/6 of POCSO Act. Having convicted the appellant under these provisions, the learned tria
Procedure provided under Sections 15 and 19 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been held to be mandatory.
The proceedings against a Child in Conflict with Law must comply strictly with statutory inquiry requirements for fair trial rights, or they may be quashed due to procedural violations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a juvenile accused should be dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the failure to do so renders any order uns....
The lack of compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards in juvenile trials invalidates the conviction, necessitating adherence to due process under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Proper procedures must be followed in determining the age and maturity of a Child in Conflict with Law to ensure fair trial under the Juvenile Justice Act.
The Supreme Court clarified that age determination in POCSO cases must follow statutory provisions strictly, and bail courts cannot exceed their jurisdiction to conduct mini-trials on age credibility....
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
