Back
ANANDA SEN, GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Rinay Paharia, son of Potala Paharia – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State at length.
2. This appeal arises out of judgment of conviction dated 21.07.2014 and order of sentence dated 23.07.2014 in S.C. No. 60 of 2013 whereby and whereunder learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur convicted the appellant under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence under Section 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code each.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from the evidence of the victim if it is read with her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.PC (Exhibit-2) the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that no offence either under section 376 of IPC or under section 366A of IPC has been committed. He submits that all the other witnesses are related and hearsay witnesses, thus their statement cannot be relied upon in support of the fact that any offence under section 376 of IPC has been committed. He further submits that even if the statements are taken to be correct, and if at all this appellant had taken the victim with him (though denied), then also no offence under section 366A
The prosecution must prove that a minor was induced to engage in illicit intercourse for a conviction under section 366A, which was not established in this case.
Consent of a minor is not valid under law, affirming the conviction for rape while setting aside the kidnapping conviction due to lack of evidence.
The conviction for rape was upheld based on consistent victim testimony, while the conviction for kidnapping was set aside due to insufficient evidence of intent.
The Court ruled that evidence of school records is primary for establishing age in sexual offense cases, and a minor's consent is irrelevant. Conviction under Section 366A was modified to Section 363....
The conviction for kidnapping and rape was upheld based on the reliable testimony of the victim, who was underage, making consent irrelevant.
Victim's testimony is paramount in sexual assault cases; absence of consent is established despite claims of the victim's age affecting the offence's classification.
Consent of a woman above 16 years negates the charge of rape; the prosecution must prove all elements of the alleged offences.
Consent of minors is not legally relevant; the offence of rape established through credible victim testimony and corroborative evidence.
Inconsistencies in a witness's statements can lead to a failure of the prosecution's case, necessitating acquittal.
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
