IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA
Julius Masih @ Sintu Masih @ Ajay – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. Pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties.
2.1 Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 19.7.2023, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Hamirpur, in Special Sessions Trial No.397 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.241 of 2020, under sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur (State of UP vs. Julius Masih @ Sintu Masih @ Ajay). By the impugned order learned Special Judge has disposed of application 25-Kha with finding that a prima facie case is made out against the accused Julius Masih @ Sintu Masih @ Ajay to put him on trial for charge under sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act. The learned court below has also observed that on perusal of academic documents produced on behalf of the prosecution, the date of birth of victim is found to be 25.11.2004. Accordingly, she was of 15 years, 7 months of age on the date of incident.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that acc
Charges under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act require proof of inducement or coercion, which was not established as the victim left voluntarily.
Rape – Consent of minor has no legal sanctity.
The court affirmed the importance of credible evidence in sexual offense cases against minors while upholding the conviction for unlawful abduction but not for rape due to lack of proof.
Conviction for rape cannot be sustained where no signs of sexual intercourse is seen in victim’s body.
The consent of a minor is not recognized in the eyes of the law, and actions involving a minor's enticement and physical relations can constitute kidnapping and aggravated penetrative assault under t....
The prosecution must prove specific intent for abduction under Section 366 IPC; failure to do so results in the acquittal of sexual assault charges.
(1) Mere recovery of a child from some other person ipso facto does not to prove offence under Section 363, IPC – Prosecution has to prove that accused either took or enticed minor out of keeping of ....
Point of Law : Taking into consideration of these aspects on evidence and in absence of any documentary evidence, it can safely be said that on the date of alleged occurrence, the victim girl (PW-2) ....
(1) Kidnapping – All kidnappings are confinement but not all confinements are kidnapping.(2) Kidnapping of girl by alluring her with false promise of marriage – Friendship as well as adolescent’s con....
(1) It is only when there is penetrative sexual assault which implies sexual contact with or without consent of minor victim, that offences under POCSO Act are committed.(2) Only in absence of birth ....
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.