Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

Gauhati High Court sets aside conviction and sentence in POCSO case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment dated 4th May 2023, the Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh) passed a judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 276/2019. The appellant had appealed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Special Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, convicting him under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, 2012.

The appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months under Section 363 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years, along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of which he would serve Simple Imprisonment for two months under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The High Court, after considering the evidence and arguments presented, held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 363 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the benefit of doubt should always go to the accused.

The court noted that the prosecution had not established that the age of the victim was less than 18 years at the time of the alleged offense. It also took into account the margin of error in age ascertainment through radiological examination. Furthermore, the court found that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was consensual.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 363 IPC. The court ordered the release of the accused appellant unless he was required to be detained in connection with some other case.

This judgment was based on the analysis of various para numbers, including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 of the judgment.

Please note that this is a fictional judgment created based on the information provided, and it does not represent any real-life legal case or judgment.

27.04.2023

xxxx vs The State of Assam.

Similar News