Back
SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, ALOK KUMAR VERMA
xxxxx – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
In this appeal against acquittal, the victim (name withheld), has assailed the judgment of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, dated 11.10.2013, in Session Trial No. 222 of 2009, acquitting the respondent no. 2 of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 368 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Penal Code for brevity) on the ground that the judgment recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, is perverse, unjust and unreasonable.
2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the informant of the case (name withheld), who has been examined as PW1, produced a written report before the S.H.O. Manglore, Haridwar, that his elder daughter has been married in Village Tashipur, P.S. Manglore, and that the victim went to her house and stayed there for sometime. On 01.06.2008, respondent no. 2 forcibly abducted and took her away. The complainant was informed about it by his elder daughter, and, therefore, he presented the report before the S.H.O. On the basis of the report, the investigation of the case was taken up. In course of investigation, the investigating officer examined the complainant and other wi
The judgment emphasizes the need for compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal and the importance of properly evaluating evidence in an appeal against acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of corroborating evidence can weaken the case.
The judgment emphasizes the principle of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence in appeals against acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt and the impact of delay in filing the FIR on the case.
The prosecution must prove the victim's age beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal of charges related to kidnapping and sexual assault.
The court emphasized the necessity for the prosecution to prove the victim's age and elements of force beyond reasonable doubt in cases involving sexual offenses against minors.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on medical evidence to determine the age of the victim, the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof on the prosecution.
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
