IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, SANJAY VASHISTH, JJ.
XXXXX - Appellant
Versus
XXXXX - Respondent
CRA No. D-7 (O&M) of 2022
Decided On : 13-12-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial recovery of victim and allegations made. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the victim's credibility and investigation flaws. (Para 6 , 8 , 11) |
| 3. court's observations on discrepancies in statements. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. application of presumptions under pocso and burden of proof. (Para 20 , 22) |
| 5. final decision leading to acquittal. (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J.
By way of this common judgment, appeals filed by two convicts, namely, Virender s/o Bharat Singh (CRA-D-7-2022) and Darshan s/o Ramphal (CRA-D-8-2022) are being decided which have been filed after they were held guilty by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Jind. The offences under which the appellants have been convicted and the period of sentence awarded is as under:
| Name of convict | offence under section | Period of Sentence | Fine Imposed | Period of Sentence in default of payment of fine |
| Virender | 363 IPC | RI for five years | Rs.20,000/- | SI for one year |
|
| 366 IPC | RI for five years | Rs.20,000/- | SI for one year |
|
| 4 of POCSO Act | RI for twenty years | Rs.100,000/- | SI for two years |
| Darshan | 6 of POCSO Act | RI for twenty years | Rs.100,000/- | SI for two years |
2. On account of the missing daughter of the complainant-Surender Jain one FIR No. 484 dated 04.09.2018, under Sections 363 and 366-A of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) was registered at Police Station City Jind, District Jind with the allegations that daughter of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘victim’), aged 13 years, studying in 9" class and of the height of 5’ feet and having fair complexion, wearing Black Pant and Blue Shirt and also having hair style like boys is missing since 03.09.2018, 5:00 p.m. He apprehended that someone had kidnapped his daughter and she be traced out. FIR was registered at about 01:02 hrs on 04.09.2018 (the intervening night of 03.09.2018 and 04.09.2018).
As a pursuit of the police action, victim is shown to be recovered from Hindua Railway Station, Rajasthan at the instance of ASI Yashbir in the presence of L/C Monika on 04.09.2018 itself. Thereupon, on moving an application by SI Kamlesh Devi on 05.09.2018 statement of the victim was recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jind, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she stated as under:
I asked the police officials to leave the room so that she can make her statement without any pressure. I asked her the following questions:
QI In which class do you study?
Ans. I study in 9th Class at Apex High School.
Q2. Are you pressurized by someone?
Ans. No.
Q3. I am satisfied that she voluntarily wishes to give her statement. Therefore I
Proceed to record it as follows:-
My heart had gone astray. I went to Delhi at my own will day before yesterday evening. Now I want to live with my family members. I met Virender in Delhi. I was living in the house of his namely Naresh. Then I went to Rajasthan with Virender.
From there the police apprehended me. Now I want to live with my parents.
RO&AC
SD/- (In English)
| SD/- (In Hindi) Mxxxxx 05.09.2018" | (Shivani Rana) JMIC, JIND |
3. On the same day i.e. 05.09.2018 at 5:20 p.m. victim was medico legally examined by Dr. Jyoti and there also on being told by the victim, the previous history was recorded and same is reproduced herein below:
She is wearing a blue colour
The prosecution must provide sufficient evidence to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt; mere allegations, without corroboration, are insufficient for conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for foundational facts to activate the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act and the need for the accused to crea....
The prosecution must prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act does not relieve it of this burden.
The prosecution must prove foundational facts, including the victim's age and the occurrence of the alleged crime, beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the POCSO Act.
The conviction was quashed due to insufficient evidence and credibility issues with the victim, highlighting the necessity of establishing a solid evidentiary foundation in sexual assault cases.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions and lack of medical evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
The prosecution must prove foundational facts of age and sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt, even with statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act.
The prosecution must prove the victim's age as below 18 for POCSO applicability; failure to do so leads to acquittal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.