District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

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