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

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.

Latest Legal News