Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

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