Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRANJAL DAS
Arbindo Mandal S/O- Jagabandhu Mandal – Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
PRANJAL DAS, J.
1. Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Mr. M. Boje, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for respondent No.2.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 29-04-2014, in the evening, an FIR was lodged by one Smti Reena Dutta against the accused Arbindo Mandal with the allegations that the accused has been sexually assaulting his 14-year-old daughter since the last one year. And whenever she used to refuse his said advances, the accused used to also physically assault her. And out of fear, the victim was unable to disclose the matter earlier. On the basis of the FIR, Pasighat PS No. 29 of 2014 was registered under Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act 2012. Upon completion of investigation, the IO laid charge sheet against the accused under the aforesaid sections.
3. After taking cognizance and necessary formalities, charges were framed against the accused by the learned Trial Court under Section 6 of the POCSO Act 2012 read with Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC. The charge being denied by the accused led to commencement of the trial.
A conviction for sexual assault requires consistent, corroborated testimony from the victim and relevant evidence, especially when minors are involved, highlighting the importance of protecting vulne....
The court upheld the conviction under the POCSO Act based on strong testimonial and medical evidence, affirming that negative DNA results do not undermine the prosecution's case.
The court established that a victim's testimony in sexual assault cases must be credible and supported by medical evidence to sustain a conviction.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the quality of evidence is essential in criminal law.
The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act requires the prosecution to first prove foundational facts beyond a reasonable doubt for it to operate against the accused.
The competence of child witnesses, scrutiny of hostile witnesses' testimony, and the significance of corroborative evidence and the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act are central legal pri....
The conviction under the POCSO Act requires substantial evidence beyond mere suspicion; failure to prove such evidence necessitates acquittal.
Statutorial presumption u/s 29 and 30 of POCSO Act certainly places a persuasive burden on appellant to show that he does not possess requisite culpable mental state for offence for which he is prose....
The victim's credible testimony, coupled with medical evidence of injury, is sufficient for conviction under the POCSO Act despite minor contradictions in her statements.
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
