“Possession Follows Title” Not An Absolute Rule When Ownership Is Disputed: Andhra Pradesh High Court ORDER 30 CPC | Appeal Filed by Firm Does Not Abate on Death of Partners: Calcutta High Court Bank Cannot Freeze Customer’s Account Based on Third-Party Dispute: Calcutta High Court Slams Axis Bank Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable POCSO | Absence of Medical Corroboration Not Fatal; Sole Testimony of Minor Victim Sufficient for Conviction: Orissa High Court Limitation Act | Article 137 Applies to Applications Under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC; 3-Year Limit Cannot Be Rendered Illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Benami Defence Cannot Override Registered Ownership: Delhi High Court Buries 35-Year-Old Family Settlement Claim Over Property Dispute Off-Road Construction Vehicles Not ‘Motor Vehicles’ Under Law: Supreme Court Quashes Road Tax on Dumpers, Excavators, and Dozers

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