Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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