Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court Election Petition Must Be Presented By Petitioner In Person, Non-Compliance Renders It Liable To Summary Dismissal: Supreme Court Absence Of Recovery Or Evidence Of Stolen Property Precludes Conviction Under Section 394 IPC: Supreme Court

POCSO | Consistent Testimonies Cannot Be Disregarded – Sikkim High Court Convicts Accused Father

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

The High Court of Sikkim has overturned the acquittal of Suresh Pradhan, who was accused of sexually assaulting his two minor daughters. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Meenakshi Madan Rai and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, underscores the significance of consistent victim testimonies and the protective intent of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

 

 

The case involved allegations of sexual assault by Suresh Pradhan on his minor daughters, aged about 16 and 14, spanning from 2011 to 2018/2019. The abuse was reported on August 26, 2020, by members of the Childline Sub-Centre after the victims sought help through the Childline Helpline. The trial court, however, acquitted Pradhan on November 16, 2022, citing insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in the victims’ statements.

 

 

The High Court critically re-evaluated the evidence, focusing on the consistent accounts provided by the victims in their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and their court depositions. The court noted, “The crux of the case has been mentioned unequivocally, sans exacerbation and embellishments by both the victims in their Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements and depositions before the Court.”

 

 

Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai highlighted the consistency in the victims’ testimonies: “PW-1 categorically stated in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement that, since she was in Class II, the Respondent used to fondle her breasts, touch her vagina and sometimes place his genital on the side of her vaginal opening.”

 

 

Addressing the delay in lodging the FIR, the court acknowledged societal and psychological factors, especially in cases involving minors and sexual assault. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the judgment stated, “It has to be remembered that law has not fixed any time for lodging the FIR. Hence a delayed FIR is not illegal.”

 

 

The High Court found the trial court’s appreciation of evidence to be flawed and perverse. It disagreed with the trial court’s reliance on the accused’s strict parenting style and the victims’ failure to immediately report the abuse to their mother or brother. The judgment emphasized that different individuals react differently to trauma and fear, and these reactions should not discredit their testimonies.

 

 

The High Court extensively discussed the legal principles guiding interference in acquittal appeals. It highlighted the need for careful consideration of evidence, especially under the POCSO Act, which mandates a presumption of guilt unless proven otherwise.

 

 

The court observed, “There is absolutely no reason to conclude that their evidence was concocted or unbelievable.” It also stressed the legislative intent of the POCSO Act to provide stringent protection against sexual offences on children.

 

 

Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai remarked, “Merely depositing money in the account of the victims would not absolve or render the Respondent not guilty of the repulsive and reprehensible acts perpetrated by him.”

 

 

The High Court’s decision to set aside the acquittal and convict Suresh Pradhan under Section 354A(1)(i) and Section 506 of the IPC sends a strong message about the judiciary’s commitment to protecting victims of sexual offences. This judgment reinforces the importance of consistent victim testimonies and the need for a meticulous appreciation of evidence in such sensitive cases.

 

 

Date of Decision- July 8, 2024

 

 

State of Sikkim vs. Suresh Pradhan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/SIKKIM-08-JULY-24-POCSO-CRIM.pdf"]

 

Latest Legal News