MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI
Sanjay Manger – Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The Appellant on being convicted under Section 9 (m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter the 'POCSO' Act), was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only, under Section 10 of the POCSO Act with a default clause of imprisonment. The Learned Trial Court, South Sikkim, at Namchi, while convicting the Appellant recorded that it had relied mainly on the evidence of P.W 1 the minor victim and P.W 2, P.W 3, P.W 5 and the Investigating Officer.
2(i). The Prosecution case is that, on 20-03-2019, Exhibit 1 the First Information Report (for short the 'FIR') was lodged by P.W 2, informing that the same morning around 3.30 a.m., his daughter aged about six years old had been sexually assaulted by the Appellant who had spent the night in his house.
(ii) On registration of the FIR, on the same date, the matter was taken up for investigation on completion of which, Charge-Sheet was filed against the Appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The Learned Trial Court on receipt of the Charge- Sheet framed Charges against the Appellant under Section 5 (m) pu
Alamelu and Another vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police (2011) 2 SCC 385
Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand (2008) 13 SCC 133 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 266
Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit 1988 Supp SCC 604 : AIR 1988 SC 1796
Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha AIR 1965 SC 282
Dayaram vs. Dawalatshah (1971) 1 SCC 358 : AIR 1971 SC 681
Desh Raj vs. Bodh Raj (2008) 2 SCC 186 : AIR 2008 SC 632
Harpal Singh vs. State of H.P. (1981) 1 SCC 560 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 208 : AIR 1981 SC 361
Madan Mohan Singh and Others vs. Rajni Kant and Another (2010) 9 SCC 209
Mohd. Ikram Hussain vs. State of U.P. AIR 1964 SC 1625 : (1964) 2 Cri LJ 590
Ram Murti vs. State of Haryana (1970) 3 SCC 21 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 371 : AIR 1970 SC 1029
Ram Prasad Sharma vs. State of Bihar (1969) 2 SCC 359 : AIR 1970 SC 326
Ram Suresh Singh vs. Prabhat Singh (2009) 6 SCC 681 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 119
Ravinder Singh Gorkhi vs. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 584 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 632
Santenu Mitra vs. State of W.B. (1998) 5 SCC 697 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1381 : AIR 1999 SC 1587
Satpal Singh vs. State of Haryana (2010) 8 SCC 714 : JT (2010) 7 SC 500
State of Punjab vs. Mohinder Singh (2005) 3 SCC 702 : AIR 2005 SC 1868
Updesh Kumar vs. Prithvi Singh (2001) 2 SCC 524 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1300 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1063
Vishnu vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) SCC 283 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 217 : 2006 Cri. L. J. 303
The court emphasized that mere admissibility of evidence does not establish its probative value, particularly when witness testimonies are inconsistent and influenced, raising reasonable doubt regard....
The court clarified that the status of a perpetrator as a public servant does not require them to act in that capacity during the commission of an aggravated sexual assault.
A conviction under the POCSO Act requires corroborative evidence beyond mere victim testimony; failure to prove victim's age and the circumstances surrounding the allegation renders the prosecution c....
Point of law: Since the appellant/accused had made the victim pregnant by his act of penetrative sexual assault the offence under Section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act is also attracted and conviction of....
The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act requires foundational facts to be established; mere reliance on medical evidence without corroboration is insufficient for conviction.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the victim's age to invoke the provisions of the POCSO Act and the evidentiary value of the School Leaving Certificate ....
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 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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for concrete proof of the authenticity of documents, such as school records and birth certificates, to establish the age of the pro....
The prosecution must prove foundational facts of age and sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt, even with statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.