Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Rakesh Kainthla
Sewak Ram alias Sanjeev – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.02.2022 and order dated 23.02.2022 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court (POCSO), Solan, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court)vide which the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC) and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) and sentenced as under:-
| Sl.No. offence | for which convicted | Substantive sentence imposed | Fine imposed | In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment imposed |
| 3. | Section 4 of the POCSO Act read with Section 376 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for fifteen (15) years | Rs.20,000/- | Six months |
2. It was ordered that the victim would be paid 50% compensation out of the fine amount if realised. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police filed a charge sheet before the learned Trial Court against the
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in evidence can lead to acquittal in sexual assault cases.
Consent of a minor has no consequence for offences under POCSO Act as well as Section 375 I.P.C.
The court emphasized that the burden to prove the victim's age lies with the prosecution, which failed to establish it through credible evidence, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the victim's age in determining the alleged offences under the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code, and the reliance on the Juv....
The prosecution must prove the victim's age and the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, with evidence of consent negating charges of kidnapping and rape.
The prosecution must prove a victim's age beyond reasonable doubt, and consent negates charges of kidnapping and rape when the victim willingly engages in a relationship.
The court established that in cases involving minors, consent is irrelevant to sexual offences, with the victim's age determined primarily through school records, highlighting strict legal protection....
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
