Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Hanif Ali S/o Abdul Rahim – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent and Ms. S. Medhi, learned legal Aid Counsel appearing for the informant/respondent No. 2.
2. The appellant has put to challenge the impugned judgment dated 08.04.2022 passed by the court of the Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), Barpeta, in Special POCSO Case No. 30/2018, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 1 year.
3. The appellant’s case is that the victim, who was 7 years of age, has not named the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime in her statements made under Section 161 and Section 164 Cr.P.C. Further, there is no allegation of penetration of the private parts of the victim by the private parts of the appellant in the above two statements. The further case of the appellant is that charge had initially been framed under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, against the appellan
Conviction under POCSO Act modified from Section 6 to Section 10 due to evidentiary inconsistencies regarding penetration and charge alteration procedures impacting the defense.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and legal provisions from the POCSO Act to establish guilt under Section 6 and determine ....
Penetrative sexual assault – Child witness - though the victim was only 4 years old at the time of the incident, a child witness can also be a reliable witness. In the present case, the competency of....
The trial court's failure to specify the charge under Section 4(1) or 4(2) of the POCSO Act resulted in an improper conviction and sentence, necessitating a remand for proper proceedings.
Evidence of victim child cannot be sole basis for convicting accused unless safeguards are undertaken.
A conviction for penetrative sexual assault requires clear and corroborative evidence of penetration, which was not established in this case; however, the appellant was guilty of sexual harassment un....
A conviction under the POCSO Act cannot stand if the victim's testimony contains significant inconsistencies regarding material facts, undermining the credibility of the prosecution's case.
The conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was overturned due to discrepancies in the victim's testimony and lack of evidence proving the appellant's direct involvement in the alleged acts.
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
