Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO
Sejalben W/o Pareshkumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of the appeal and basic details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. overview of the incident and fir details. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments presented by both sides. (Para 6) |
| 4. judgment insights emphasizing the standard of proof. (Para 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. the absence of voyeurism and the justification for acquittal. (Para 11 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
S.V. PINTO, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – original complainant under Section 413 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS ’) against respondent no.1 – State and the respondent no.1 – original accused challenging the impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (POCSO) Case No. 26 of 2020 order dated 01.07.2024, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent no. 2 – original accused from the offence under Section 354(C) of the Indina Penal Code ((hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and under Section 11 (iv) of the POCSO Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
1.1 The appellant and the respondent no. 2 are hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant and the accused’
The act of glancing at a minor outside her house does not constitute voyeurism under IPC; no privacy or sexual intent was proven.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt for convictions in sexual offences; acquittal is justified if evidence does not meet this burden.
Sexual harassment of girl child – Alleged expression [xxx I Love You] by accused alone would not constitute “sexual assault” as provided under Section 7 of POCSO Act.
The prosecution failed to establish credible evidence to support charges of stalking and harassment against the respondent, leading to the upheld acquittal.
The victim's consistent testimony and witness corroboration can establish guilt, and failure to rebut statutory presumptions can lead to conviction.
Conviction under IPC 363, 376 and POCSO Section 4 upheld for enticing minor (under 18) by suicide threat and penetrative sexual assault; consent immaterial; victim's corroborated testimony and medica....
The testimony of a child witness can be relied upon if corroborated by other evidence, and the presence of support persons does not imply tutoring.
A conviction under the IPC for sexual assault requires corroborated evidence of the act without presumption, highlighting the necessity of foundational facts in POCSO cases.
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
