Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Acquits Appellant in POCSO Case - Discrepancies in Prosecutrix's Testimony: Gauhati High Court

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Gauhati High Court acquitted the appellant, Asuruddin Khan, in a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) case, highlighting discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecutrix. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia on 5th June 2023, set aside the appellant's conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and ordered his immediate release.

The case involved allegations of sexual offense against a minor. According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix, a 14-year-old girl, had been summoned by Saheda Khatun to her house on 14th August 2016. It was alleged that the appellant had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on the promise of marriage. The prosecutrix lodged an FIR, and during the trial, she provided a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

However, during the trial, discrepancies emerged in the prosecutrix's versions of the incident. The statement given under Section 164 CrPC indicated consensual intercourse, whereas her trial testimony suggested forceful intercourse with threats. The court noted these inconsistencies and observed that the evidence of the prosecutrix failed to inspire confidence. The court also took into account the father's statement regarding the appellant's refusal to recognize the prosecutrix when she called him after the incident.

After evaluating the evidence, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the offense with a criminal intention. The court opined that the prosecutrix seemed to be a consenting party to the act of the appellant and embellished her evidence to ensure his punishment.

In the judgment, the court held, "The evidence of the prosecutrix failed to inspire confidence. The prosecution evidence failed to prove the offense against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt." Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. If the appellant was in custody, the court ordered for his immediate release.

This judgment raises important considerations regarding the evaluation of evidence in POCSO cases and the need for consistency and reliability in witness testimony. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that evidence meets the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt before convicting an accused.

The judgment serves as a reminder that while protecting the rights of victims is crucial, the principles of justice and fairness must also be upheld. The acquittal of the appellant in this case emphasizes the necessity for a meticulous examination of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

Date of Decision: 5th June 2023.

ASURUDDIN KHAN vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

Latest Legal News