Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, K.RAJASEKAR
Ravichandran – Appellant
Versus
State through, The Inspector of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.
Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,Tirunelveli, in Spl. Case No.68 of 2017, dated 14.11.2019, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the sole accused.
2. The appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Legal provision | Sentence imposed |
| Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 | Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2 lakhs, in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment. |
| Section 506 (i) IPC | Six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. |
3. The case of the prosecution is as follows :-
i) The de facto complainant/victim girl (PW2) is residing at Veikalipatti th Village along with her family. She had completed 10 standard and thereafter, completed Diploma in Nursing and is working as a Nurse in Susila Hospital at Pavoorchatram, Tenkasi, for the past 1 ¼ years. The accused, who is a married man having two male children, was residing at the victim's neighboring village Lakshmipati and he was working as an Accountant in the Ramya Dairy Farm and he used to visit the victim’s paternal uncle’s house for settling account regar
The court established that unreliable age evidence and inconsistencies in the victim's account, coupled with her prior consent, undermined the conviction under the POCSO Act.
Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage from a minor is invalid, establishing the accused's guilt under relevant sexual assault laws.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the stringent burden of proof required in cases involving offences against minors, emphasizing the necessity of credible evidence to establish g....
The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing that consent from a minor is not legally valid under the POCSO Act.
Consent under threat is not valid in law. Victim's age must be determined by appropriate legal standards to ensure protection under the POCSO Act.
Point of Law : Prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that the victim was below 18 years of age as on the date of the incident. Under these circumstances, the accused cannot be held guilty of o....
The conviction under IPC and POCSO Act was overturned due to failure of prosecution to prove the victim's age, highlighting the necessity for strict adherence to evidentiary standards in such cases.
The prosecution must prove the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt in cases involving sexual offences under the POCSO Act, and the absence of reliable evidence can lead to 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
