Back
Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, CJ
Mikal Bhujel – Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of charges, lower court conviction, and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence and the definition of penetrative versus sexual assault. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. analysis of victim testimony and the validity of accusations in the absence of names in the initial fir. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. legal interpretation of penetrative sexual assault under pocso act requires proof of penetration, otherwise falling under section 7. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. final order modifying conviction from section 3 to section 7 of the pocso act. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as “Cr. P.C.”, by the accused/appellant Mikal Bhujel @ Rubeen, challenging the judgment dated 21.08.2018 and the findings of conviction recorded in S.T. (POCSO) Case No.14 of 2016 by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”. The sentence awarded on 22.08.2018 directing the accused to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment has al
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
