Section 84 BNSS | Mechanical Declaration as ‘Proclaimed Person’ Without Due Procedure Illegal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail is the Exception, Not the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5 Crore Drug Racket Adopted Son Is Class I Heir—Collateral Relatives Cannot Challenge Will in Probate Court: Madras High Court Assignment of Leasehold Rights is Transfer of Immovable Property, Not Supply of Services: Bombay High Court Quashes GST Show Cause Notice Against Aerocom Irretrievable Breakdown Is Cruelty in Itself When the Marriage Has Become a Legal Fiction: Calcutta High Court Grants Divorce Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means Attracts Prima Facie Offence Under Section 69 BNS: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Criminal Proceedings in False Promise of Marriage Case Scheduled Areas Are Constitutionally Protected, Not Constitutionally Frozen: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Municipal Inclusion of Tribal Territories Death of Innocents Due to Spurious Liquor Is a Serious Blow to Society—Bail Cannot Be Granted Merely Because Viscera Reports Are Inconclusive: Orissa High Court When the Sole Eyewitness Is Dead, Confession Alone Can’t Convict: Madras High Court Acquits Chain Snatching Accused Office of Advocate in Residential Building Not a Commercial Use: MP High Court Absence of Judicial Satisfaction Renders Declaration Under Section 82 CrPC Illegal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PO Order No Entitlement to Interest Beyond 1.5% Without Agreed Terms: MP High Court Dismisses Creditors' Appeals Against Official Liquidator's Adjudication Supervisory Jurisdiction Is Not Appellate Review : Kerala High Court Refuses to Interfere with Pension Reduction Ordered Without Regular Disciplinary Enquiry Revenue Authorities Cannot Alter Mutation of Acquired Land Based on ‘Recalled’ Judicial Orders: Karnataka High Court Section 45 Cannot Justify Indefinite Detention - Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Defeats Article 21: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 223 BNSS | No Cognizance Without Complainant's Oath: Gauhati High Court 304A IPC | No Presumption of Rash Driving Merely Because of Accident: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Child Death Case Auction Purchaser Has No Absolute Right: Calcutta High Court Upholds Borrower's Right of Redemption Under SARFAESI Act 15 Days’ Notice Under TP Act Is Sufficient To Terminate Monthly Tenancy After Lease Expiry: Bombay High Court Indefinite Blacklisting Without Authority or Hearing is Civil Death in Disguise: Allahabad High Court Environmental Tribunal Cannot Be A Toothless Watchdog… It Must Act Without Waiting For The Metaphorical Godot: Andhra Pradesh High Court FIR Lodged After Marital Breakdown Based on “Emotional Outburst”, Not Rape: Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Case Post-Divorce SARFAESI | Deposit Before Bank Can’t Be Treated as Statutory Pre-Deposit Before DRAT: Kerala High Court Truth Cannot Be Gagged by Injunction: Madras High Court Refuses Celebrity Chef’s Plea to Restrain Allegedly Defamatory Social Media Posts on Intimate Relationship Probate Not Mandatory for Will Executed in Keonjhar – Civil Court Can Decide Title Based on Unprobated Will: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Daughter’s Suit Against Valid Gift to Nephew

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