CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

Absence of Credible Evidence and Failure of Prosecution to Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt Leads to Acquittal in POCSO Case – Madras High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court set aside the conviction of the appellant in a case involving allegations of kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9(m) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act. The Court underscored the importance of credible evidence and the necessity for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The case involved allegations that the appellant kidnapped an 8-year-old girl and committed sexual assault. The appellant was convicted by the trial court. The appeal raised questions about the credibility of the child victim's testimony, the presence of the appellant at the crime scene, and the plausibility of the alleged events during the COVID-19 lockdown.

Child Witness Credibility: The Court carefully examined the child victim's testimony, acknowledging the potential for tutoring and influence. The Court referred to various Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence in cases involving child witnesses.

Inconsistencies in Testimonies: The Court noted significant discrepancies in witness testimonies, particularly concerning the appellant's presence at the crime scene. The implausibility of the children purchasing items during a stringent COVID-19 lockdown was highlighted.

Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases: The Court reiterated the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, which must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in serious offenses under the POCSO Act.

Decision: The Court, noting the lack of credible evidence, inconsistencies in testimonies, and the prosecution's failure to meet the high standard of proof, acquitted the appellant of all charges. However, the Court upheld the compensation awarded to the victim, reflecting a nuanced approach to victim rights.

Date of Decision: 12.03.2024

Rajendran v. State

 

Latest Legal News