Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
Subhankar Das @ Shubhankar Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
I.A. No. 13404 of 2024
Prayer
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence dated 22.09.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Jamshedpur in Special (POCSO) Case No. 1325 of 2017 arising out of Sidhgora P.S. Case No.78 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted under Sections 376(D), 379 and 411 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 25 years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- for committing the offences under Section 376(d) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and imposed fine amount of Rs. one lakh, and the amount paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and her rehabilitation and in default of payment of fine, further sentenced to under RI for five years separately; and has further been sentenced to RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- for committing the offence under Section 411 IPC and in default of payment of fine further sentenced to undergo RI for two months separately. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Factual Matrix
2. The prosecution case, in
The appellant's conviction under the POCSO Act was upheld as the victim was underage at the time of the offense, notwithstanding the alteration in charges, which did not prejudice the appellant's def....
The court affirmed that consent is irrelevant if the victim is a minor, emphasizing that credible evidence, especially concerning age, is paramount in cases under the POCSO Act.
The judgment reinforces the evidentiary standards in sexual assault cases under the POCSO Act, particularly the weight of victim testimony and the statutory presumption of guilt.
The Supreme Court clarified that age determination in POCSO cases must follow statutory provisions strictly, and bail courts cannot exceed their jurisdiction to conduct mini-trials on age credibility....
The court established that the burden of proving a victim's age lies with the prosecution, and the absence of reliable evidence necessitates giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.
The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age as below 18 years, thus the POCSO Act was not applicable, leading to a modification of the conviction under IPC.
The court emphasized the necessity of accurate age determination in POCSO cases, requiring reasoned medical reports and adherence to statutory provisions for bail applications.
Legislators not 'public servants' under Section 21 IPC for POCSO aggravated offenses; sentence suspended post minimum term service pending appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail must be based on relevant considerations, and the heinous nature of the offence, statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act,....
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
