Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

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

Latest Legal News