Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court

Child Victim’s Testimony Credible: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in POCSO Case, Reduces Sentence

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered on January 5, 2024, the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant in a case involving charges under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The court, while delivering its verdict, reduced the appellant’s sentence, highlighting the credibility of the child victim’s testimony.

The bench, headed by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL, found the child victim’s testimony to be reliable and trustworthy. The court noted that there were no inconsistencies in her statements and emphasized the importance of the child victim’s testimony. In the judgment, the bench stated, “The child victim in all her statements has supported the case of the prosecution and there are no inconsistencies in her statements. The child victim, in all her statements has consistently maintained that the accused removed her underwear and inserted his finger in her private parts.”

The court also considered the corroborative evidence provided by the mother of the child victim. The mother’s immediate actions, including confronting the accused and reporting the incident to the police, were deemed relevant and admissible as res gestae evidence under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Addressing the issue of a key eyewitness (PW-6) turning hostile, the court held that this did not undermine the prosecution’s case. The judgment noted that material contradictions existed in PW-6’s testimony and the appellant’s defense, and the prosecution’s case could be sustained through other evidence.

The court further discussed the medical evidence in the case, stating, “Merely because the hymen of the child victim is found to be intact, it does not mean that the victim was not subjected to penetrative sexual assault.” The court relied on precedent judgments and the definition of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act to support this observation.

Regarding sentencing, the court considered the appellant’s conduct during his incarceration, his age, and the absence of any involvement in other offenses. Consequently, the court decided to reduce the appellant’s sentence from twenty years to twelve years of imprisonment, while retaining the fine imposed by the Trial Court.

Delhi High Court’s verdict underscores the importance of treating the testimony of child victims with care and sensitivity, while also highlighting the need for justice to be served based on credible evidence.

Date of Decision: January 5, 2024

PRADEEP KUMAR VS STATE           

 

Latest Legal News