Back
SANJIB BANERJEE, W. DIENGDOH
Ialamphrang Kharsyiemlieh – Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjib Banerjee; CJ. - The appellant has been convicted under Section 376(2)(f) of the Penal Code, 1860 together with Section 3(a) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. A minor ground has been raised on the merits of the judgment of conviction, but the major thrust of the argument pertains to the obvious error committed by the trial court in awarding a sentence of 20 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(3) of the Penal Code. The appellant has also been sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 4 of the Act of 2012. The tenure in prison is to run concurrently. In default of the payment of fine, the appellant is to undergo simple imprisonment for a further month.
3. On the merits of the matter, the appellant complains that the ostensible confessional statement was obtained in flagrant disregard to the checks and balances envisaged in Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant asserts that the confession was obtained in a correctional home, in the presence of police officials and not, as it is ordinarily done, in court premises by a Magistrate.
4. Even if what the appellant asserts is a
The conviction was based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the testimony of the survivor, highlighting the importance of corroborative evidence in such cases.
The confessional statement of the appellant and testimonies of witnesses can be crucial in establishing guilt and determining the appropriate sentence.
The victim's testimony, if found reliable, can be the basis for conviction in sexual assault cases, and the court cannot reduce the sentence below the minimum prescribed by law.
Consent of a minor is legally invalid in sexual assault cases; sufficient evidence supported conviction for kidnapping despite the absence of legal consent.
Rape of minor girl – When alleged acts or omissions constitute offence both under IPC and POCSO Act then, law which prescribes punishment of greater degree would have to be applied – Fields of operat....
The minimum punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was 10 years at the time of the offence, necessitating a modification of the appellant's sentence fro....
A minor cannot consent to sexual acts, and the court confirmed that the accused could not be convicted without substantive evidence against each individual, resulting in varied sentences for two accu....
The court affirmed that prior legal standards apply to convictions, emphasizing the necessity of valid evidence and proper assessment of child witnesses' competency in sexual assault cases.
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
