Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee 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.

Latest Legal News