Granting Bail Does Not Shield Foreign Nationals from Executive Action on Visa Violations: Delhi High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Misused to Resolve Substantive Disputes or Replace Execution Mechanisms: P&H High Court Eviction Proceedings Must Follow Principles of Natural Justice: Telangana High Court Quashes Eviction Order under Senior Citizens Act Limitation Law | Sufficient Cause Cannot Be Liberally Interpreted If Negligence or Inaction Is Apparent: Gujarat High Court Mere Pendency of Lease Renewal Requests Does Not Constitute Bona Fide Dispute: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Proceedings Under Public Premises Act CGST | Declaratory Nature of Safari Retreats Ruling Mandates Reassessment of Input Tax Credit Claims: Kerala High Court Changing Rules of the Game Mid-Way Violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: Rajasthan High Court Disapproval of a Relationship Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Without Direct Instigation or Mens Rea: Supreme Court Limitation Period Under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act Cannot Defeat Victim’s Right to Compensation: Gujarat High Court Maintenance To Wife Cannot Be a Precondition for Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 438 CrPC Court Cannot Rewrite Contract When Vendor Lacks Ownership of the Property: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Appeal for Specific Performance Royalty Can Be Levied on Minor Minerals Like Brick Earth, Irrespective of Land Ownership: Supreme Court Bail in Heinous Crimes Must Be Granted with Adequate Reasons and Judicial Scrutiny: Supreme Court Judicial Review in Disciplinary Cases Is Limited to Fairness, Not Reappreciation of Evidence: Supreme Court Prolonged Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Criminalized as Rape on False Promise of Marriage: Madras High Court No Interference in Judgments Without Perversity or Legal Error Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh HC

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

07 May 2024 8:19 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

Similar News