Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Ajijul Islam, S/o. Ala Uddin – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam, To Be Rep. By The P.P., Assam – Respondent
Paragraph 38 discusses the assessment of the victim's age based on medical evidence. It states that the medical examination indicated the victim was above 14 and below 16 years old. The court considers the upper age limit in the age estimation report, which could be nearly 16 years, and applies a margin of error of two years. This means the victim's age could be just under 18 years, and therefore, the prosecution has not conclusively proved that the victim was a minor at the relevant time. As a result, the charge under the relevant section of the POCSO Act cannot be sustained.
Paragraph 39 emphasizes that forensic age estimation is not precise and allows for a margin of error. Considering this, along with the medical report, the court concludes that the victim's age cannot be definitively established as below 18 years beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the case for statutory rape under the specified section of the IPC fails.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on fir for kidnapping. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. victim's testimony and corroborative evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 10 , 14 , 16) |
| 3. investigation lapses leading to question credibility. (Para 17 , 18 , 22 , 24) |
| 4. importance of a consistent and reliable witness. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. legal definitions of kidnapping and age determination in pocso cases. (Para 32 , 33 , 40) |
| 6. court's decision to overturn conviction. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (Special Judge) Cachar, Silchar in SPL (POCSO) Case No.42/2017 convicting the appellant under Section 4 of POCSO Act and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a term of 6 (six) months and also convicted under Section 366 of IPC and Sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I) for 7 (seven) years and also to pay fine of Rs. 7000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a term of 3 months.
2. Prosecution case in brief
The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the minor status of the victim beyond a reasonable doubt, undermining the conviction under the POCSO Act.
Penetrative sexual assault upon minor girl – It is incumbent upon prosecution to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that victim was below 18 years as on date of occurrence to attract provisions o....
The prosecution failed to establish the victim's age as a child under the POCSO Act, leading to the quashing of the conviction due to insufficient evidence and credibility issues.
The prosecution must clearly prove a victim's minority in POCSO cases, requiring authenticated age documentation; mere reliance on school records is insufficient.
The conviction of a minor for kidnapping and repetitive rape is upheld when credible evidence establishes the victim's minority and the accused's actions contravene statutory provisions regarding chi....
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
