Back
PREM NARAYAN SINGH
Farid Khan S/o Fakhhu Khan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh Station House Officer Through Police Station Nagda – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.09.2021, passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), District Ujjain, in S.T. No.94/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, 1860 and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo 2 years and 2 years R.I with fine of Rs.100/- under each sections and usual default stipulation.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 07.10.2020, at about 11.30 am when the prosecutrix was alone in her house, the appellant came there and finding her alone he started rubbing her chest with bad intention. When prosecutrix cried for help he ran away from the spot. Thereafter when prosecutrix's mother returned home the prosecutrix narrated the whole incident and along with her mother and uncle reported the incident.
3 . The police party, following due procedure, arrested the appellant, registered the case against him. After necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 354 of IPC, 1860 and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Conviction under IPC and POCSO Act upheld despite defense claims of contradictions; testimonies of victim and witnesses found credible.
The determination of the age of the prosecutrix, credibility of testimonies, and the presumption of a culpable mental state on the part of the accused in cases under the POCSO Act.
Attempt to outrage modesty of minor girl – Testimonies of prosecutrix as well as other witnesses cannot be wiped out on the basis of trivial contradictions.
Attempt to outrage modesty of girl child – Sexual intention of accused is discernible from act of accused.
The court established that in cases involving minors, the presumption of sexual intent is critical, and school records are admissible for age determination.
Rule 12 is strictly applicable only to determine age of a child in conflict with law.
The court upheld the conviction of the appellants for sexual offences against a minor, emphasizing the credibility of the victim's testimony and corroborative evidence.
The prosecution must provide conclusive evidence of a victim's age in POCSO cases; reliance on school records alone is insufficient without corroborative proof.
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
