Tender Age Doctrine Dictates Custody Must Ordinarily Rest With Mother For Child's Holistic Development: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | Newspaper Publication Confers Deemed Notice; Candidates Cannot Cite Rural Residence To Seek Belated Recruitment Applications: Calcutta High Court Proving Ownership Does Not Establish Jural Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant: Madras High Court Rules 1998 Overrules 1983 Guidelines; Selection Process For Principals Cannot Be Challenged By Unsuccessful Candidates Who Participated Without Demur: Allahabad High Court Panjab University Is An Inter-State Body Under S.72 Punjab Reorganisation Act, UGC Regulations Enhancing Superannuation Age To 65 Inapplicable Without Central Govt Sanction Under S.31 PU Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Police Enquiry Reports Do Not Bind Magistrate In S. 200 Private Complaint, Inquest Statements Under S. 174 Cannot Warrant Quashing Murder Summons: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 197 CrPC | Special Court Cannot Mechanically Treat Protest Petition As Complaint Without Reasoned Judicial Order: Allahabad High Court 'Errant Developer Cannot Seek De-Registration Of Society By Taking Benefit Of Own Wrong': Bombay High Court Quashes Order Disbanding 18-Year-Old Housing Body Section 12(5) A&C Act Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively To Invalidate Arbitrator Appointment Made Before 2015 Amendment: Delhi High Court Section 9 Arbitration Act | Non-Signatory Group Entities Can Be Restrained If They Are Used To Indirectly Defeat Negative Covenants: Bombay High Court CGST Act | Penalty Applies Prospectively From Jan 1, 2021; 'Any Person' Includes Non-Taxable Entities: Delhi High Court Nominated Members Barred From Voting Cannot Be Included In 'Total Number' To Compute 2/3rd Majority In No-Confidence Motion: Rajasthan High Court Full Bench Specific Performance | Agreement Executed By Some Co-Sharers Without Consent Of Others Is Not Enforceable: Madras High Court Trusteeship Of Public Charitable Trust Not Personal Property Capable Of Testamentary Devolution; Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Breach Of Service Rules By Arbitrator Does Not Automatically Trigger De Jure Ineligibility Under Section 12(5) A&C Act: Delhi High Court Declaration And Recovery Of Possession | Plaintiff Must Establish Title Irrespective Of Weakness In Defendant's Case: Madras High Court

Orissa High Court Upholds Conviction in POCSO Case, Rejects Appeal Plea Citing “Trustworthy and Reliable” Victim’s Evidence

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the Orissa High Court has upheld the conviction of the accused in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The judgment, delivered by Justice S.K. Sahoo on 19th July 2023, reaffirms the importance of corroborating evidence and the reliability of the victim’s testimony in cases involving crimes against children.

The appellant, represented by learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Akhaya Kumar Beura, had challenged the trial court’s ruling, contending that there was no concrete evidence to establish the age of the victim. However, the court firmly rejected this argument, stating, “The prosecution has successfully proved that the victim was less than sixteen years of age as on the date of occurrence.”

The case centered around the appellant’s conviction under sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping or abducting a woman with intent to compel her for marriage or illicit intercourse), and 376(2)(i)(n) (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as section 6 of the POCSO Act. The court emphasized the significance of determining the age of the victim, noting, “Establishing the minority of the victim child is a condition precedent to proceeding with a case under the POCSO Act.”

Justice S.K. Sahoo also addressed the defense’s attempt to discredit the victim’s statement by referring to her previous statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). The court asserted that such statements are not substantive evidence and can only be used for corroboration or contradiction, provided the witness is confronted with the contradictions during cross-examination.

The court firmly supported the victim’s evidence, stating, “The evidence of the victim (P.W.1) regarding commission of rape on her and her rescue gets corroboration from her family members and the same can be acted upon.” The court also appreciated the efforts of Mr. Akhaya Kumar Beura, the learned Amicus Curiae, and awarded him professional fees of Rs. 7,500.

This verdict highlights the significance of corroborating evidence in cases involving crimes against children and underscores the court’s commitment to protecting the rights and safety of minors. The judgment sets a precedent for the strict evaluation of evidence in similar cases, further reinforcing the stance against such heinous crimes.

Date of Decision: 19th July 2023

Bapun Singh vs State of Odisha

Latest Legal News