Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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

07 May 2024 8:19 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