Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Material Contradictions in Testimonies Lead to Acquittal in POCSO Case: Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction of Teachers

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment dated 11th March 2024, the Supreme Court of India acquitted two teachers previously convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court's decision hinged on the insufficiency of evidence and substantial doubts raised by inconsistencies in witness testimonies.

The case involved allegations against two teachers (appellants) for sexually harassing a minor girl on Valentine's Day, marked by gifting flowers and chocolates, followed by threatening remarks. The High Court had upheld their conviction. However, the appellants contested the findings, highlighting contradictions in the prosecution's evidence and the lack of corroborative witnesses.

Justice Dipankar Datta, in a detailed judgment, underscored numerous discrepancies, including:

Contradictory accounts of the complaint filing process.

  • Inconsistencies in the victim's statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her deposition in court.
  • Unexplained failure to examine other classroom students who were potential eyewitnesses.
  • Irrelevant emphasis on Valentine's Day in the context of the case.

Justice Datta noted, "Material contradictions apparent in the depositions of prosecution witnesses, including the victim, significantly undermine the credibility of the prosecution version."

The Court found the evidence presented by the prosecution inadequate for conviction, granting the benefit of doubt to the appellants. The inconsistencies and contradictions led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The convictions under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC against the appellants were set aside, leading to their acquittal and immediate release from custody.

Date of Decision: 11th March, 2024.

Nirmal Premkumar & Anr. vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police,

Latest Legal News