Back
RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Monu – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
1. The challenge in this appeal is made to the judgment and order dated 27/29.11.2019, passed in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2016, State vs. Monu, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTSC Haridwar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii)/6 of The Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“the Act”) and sentenced as follows:
(ii) Under Section 366-A IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.
(iii) Under Section 6 of the Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The prosecution must prove a victim's age beyond reasonable doubt, and consent negates charges of kidnapping and rape when the victim willingly engages in a relationship.
The prosecution must prove the age of the victim and consent in cases involving charges under the POCSO Act. Failure to establish these crucial elements can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the victim's age and the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, with evidence of consent negating charges of kidnapping and rape.
The determination of a victim's age, especially in cases involving minors, relies on the presumption of minority based on credible evidence such as school records and medical examination. The evident....
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
