Back
KARDAK ETE
Pitam Lamnio S/o Shri Dapung Lamnio – Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. Ebo Mili, learned counsel for the applicant namely Shri Pitam Lamnio, representing the accused namely Shri. Thomas Lamnio and also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional PP for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
2. This is an application challenging the order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Bomdila whereby the application filed on behalf of the accused for determination of the age of the victim in connection with POCSO case no. 11/2022 arising out of Seppa Women PS case no. 12/2022 under section 376(3) IPC, 1860 read with section 6 of POCSO Act.
3. The accused filed an application for determination of age of the victim before the Special Judge on the ground that the certificate relied on by the prosecution regarding the age of the victim is not correct. The school certificate obtained through the RTI from where the victim had pursued her schooling shows that at the time of occurrence of the offence, the victim was major. However, the learned Special Judge, Bomdila has rejected the application by the order dated 08.05.2023 without following the relevant provisions under the POCSO Act, 2012 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Rule 54 (18)(iv) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rule, 2016 provides that for determination of victim, in relation to offences against children under Act, same procedures mandat....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of age determination in cases under the POCSO Act, emphasizing the need to establish foundational facts, including the proof of the ....
The court held that determining a victim's age is a mandatory statutory obligation for a Special Court, requiring a reasoned order based on evidence. However, the recall of witnesses is discretionary....
The jurisdiction of a Special Court under the special legislation is strictly dependent on the victim's age. When age is disputed, the court must conduct a formal inquiry under the relevant juvenile ....
The court's discretion to reject an application to determine the victim's age before trial.
The court upheld the conviction under the POCSO Act, affirming that consent is irrelevant when the victim is a minor, and established the victim's age as 16 years through credible evidence.
The court emphasized the necessity of a proper enquiry into juvenility, allowing the accused to present evidence and examine the Medical Board, rather than relying solely on medical opinion.
The prosecution must establish the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt in cases under the POCSO Act; failure to provide adequate evidence leads to acquittal.
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
