Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(Sikk) 19

MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN
Taraman Kami, S/o Shri Parcha Bir Kami – Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Jorgay Namka, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) with Ms. Panila Theengh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. J. B. Pradhan, Public Prosecutor with Mr. S. K. Chettri and Mrs. Pollin Rai, Assistant Public Prosecutors.

Judgement Key Points

How to determine whether a conviction can be recorded against a minor victim based on her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement without an FIR?

What is the role and admissibility of Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements as substantive evidence in POCSO cases?

What are the circumstances under which Section 29 of the POCSO Act creates a presumption, and how does it interact with Section 313 Cr.P.C. in this case?

JUDGMENT :

MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J.

1. Crl.A. No.32 of 2016 (Taraman Kami vs. State of Sikkim) and Crl.A.13 of 2017 (State of Sikkim vs. Taraman Kami) are being disposed of by this common Judgment, being related matters.

2. In Crl.A. No.32 of 2016, the Learned Court of the Special Judge (POCSO), West Sikkim, at Gyalshing, in Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case No.05 of 2016, convicted the Appellant for incestuous sexual assault under Sections 5(l) and 5(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity “POCSO Act”), and under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the “IPC”), vide the impugned Judgment dated 27-09-2016. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 10 (ten) years and fined Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, under Sections 5(l) and 5(n) of the POCSO Act, with a default stipulation, and simple imprisonment of one year under Section 506 of the IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, duly setting off the detention already undergone by the Appellant. The Judgment and Order on Sentence are being assailed in this Appeal.

3. In Crl.A. No.13 of 2017, the State-Appellant assailed the Order on Sentence detailed hereinabove, and prayed f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(Sikk) 19

MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, BHASKAR RAJ PRADHANTaraman Kami, S/o Shri Parcha Bir Kami – AppellantVersusState of Sikkim – Respondent

How to determine whether a conviction can be recorded against a minor victim based on her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement without an FIR?

What is the role and admissibility of Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements as substantive evidence in POCSO cases?

What are the circumstances under which Section 29 of the POCSO Act creates a presumption, and how does it interact with Section 313 Cr.P.C. in this case?

Cases Referred (9)

MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN
Taraman Kami, S/o Shri Parcha Bir Kami – Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim – Respondent