Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ
Rajab Khandakar S/o Rokeya Bewa – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.V. JAYAKUMAR, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Fast Track Special Court, Perumbavoor in S.C. No. 284/2020. The offences alleged against the appellant/accused are under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(a) r/w 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereinafter referred as ‘the POCSO Act’].
2. The learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) r/w 4(2) of the POCSO Act. The Court further directed that, if the fine amount is realized, it shall be paid to the victim as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. No separate sentence was awarded to the accused under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code . Impugning the judgment of the Special Court, Perumbavoor, the sole accused has preferred this Criminal Appeal.
3. The allegation in this matter is that, a 13 year old child was subjected to penetrative sexual assault and rape by a migrant worker residing near the house of the victim. The prosecution case is that, on 23.10.2019, at about 2 p.m. while the victim girl was wa
The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural lapses, lack of identification, and unexplained delay in filing the FIR.
Rape conviction quashed due to unreliable victim testimony with inconsistencies and improvements, manipulated age records doubting minority, absent medical evidence despite multiple claims, unexplain....
The delay in lodging the FIR in rape cases, particularly involving minors, and the victim's inability to identify the accused during cross-examination were deemed immaterial in light of compelling ev....
The reliability of the victim's testimony, corroborative evidence, and the legal provisions of the POCSO Act were crucial in establishing the guilt of the appellant.
The prosecution failed to prove the victim's age and the occurrence of the alleged incident beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
Prosecution has to prove the foundational facts of the offence charged against the accused, not based on proof beyond reasonable doubt, but on the basis of preponderance of probability.
The court affirmed that the victim's consistent testimony suffices for conviction in sexual assault cases, reinforcing that age determination and credibility of the witness are pivotal in such judgme....
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
