Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims

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