Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: 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