Multiple NDPS Cases Without Conviction Cannot Justify Indefinite Pre-Trial Custody: Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail in Heroin Case Departmental Findings Based On Witnesses Discredited By Criminal Court Constitute 'No Evidence': Orissa High Court Upheld Constable's Reinstatement When Pension Rules Are Capable of More Than One Interpretation, Courts Must Lean in Favour of the Employee: MP High Court Wife Left Voluntarily — But Minor Children Cannot Be Taken Away: Madras High Court Intervenes in Habeas Corpus for Two Toddlers Where Consideration Does Not Pass in Terms of the Sale Deed, the Sale Deed Is Null and Void, a Nullity and Dead Letter in the Eyes of Law: Jharkhand High Court National Award-Winning Director's Script Was Registered Two Years Before Complainant Even Wrote His — Supreme Court Quashes Copyright Infringement Case Against 'Kahaani-2' Director IBC Clean Slate Does Not Wipe Out Right of Set-Off as Defence: Supreme Court Draws Critical Distinction Between Counterclaim and Defensive Plea GST Assessment Challenged on Natural Justice Grounds Tagged to Criminal Writ in Supreme Court Railway Cannot Escape Compensation by Crying 'Trespass' Without Eyewitness: Bombay High Court Reverses Tribunal, Awards Rs. 4 Lakh to Widow of Rolex Employee Master Plan Cannot Be Held Hostage to Subsequent Vegetation Growth — Supreme Court Settles Deemed Forest vs. Statutory Planning Conflict Contempt | Sold Property Despite Court's Restraint Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sentences One Month's Imprisonment Tractor-Run-Over Death Was An Accident, Not Murder: Allahabad High Court Acquits Three Accused Fast-Tracking Cannot Bury Justice: Supreme Court Sets Aside 21-Year-Delayed Appeal Decided Without Informing Convict Panchayat Act's Demolition Powers Cease Once Plot Falls Under Development Authority's Planning Area: Calcutta High Court Actual Date Of Woman Director's Appointment A Triable Issue; Prosecution Can't Be Quashed Merely On Claims Of Compliance: Calcutta High Court A Website Cannot Whisper and Then Punish: Delhi High Court Reins in DSSSB Over E-Dossier Rejections Mutual Consent Alone Ends the Marriage: Gujarat High Court Affirms Mubarat Divorce Without Formalities State Cannot Hide Behind "Oral Consent" or Delay When It Builds Roads Through Citizens' Land Without Due Process: Himachal Pradesh HC Show Cause Notice Alone Cannot Cut a Retired Engineer's Pension: Jharkhand High Court Bovine Smuggling Is a Law and Order Problem, Not a Public Order Threat: J&K High Court Quashes PSA Detention Article 22(2) Constitution | Production Beyond 24 Hours Not Fatal If Delay Explained And Travel Time Excluded: Karnataka High Court Article 227 Is Not an Appellate Power: High Court Refuses to Reassess Tribunal Findings on Pension Claim: Kerala High Court High Court Cannot Call A Complaint "False And Malicious" Without First Finding It Discloses No Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court When Jurisdiction Fails, Remand Cannot Cure It: Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Sending MSME Award Dispute Back to Functus Officio Facilitation Council Selling Inferior Pipes as 'Jain' or 'Jindal Gold' Brand Is Not Just a Civil Wrong — It's Cheating: MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Went to Collect Chit Fund Money, Got Arrested in Prostitution Raid: Telangana High Court Grants Bail to Woman Accused of Being Sub-Organiser Axe Blow During Sudden Quarrel Falls Under Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC, Not Murder: Orissa High Court Modifies Conviction To Culpable Homicide

POCSO | Modesty of a Child is Her Right: Madhya Pradesh High Cour Uphold Conviction for Molestation of 11-Year-Old

05 October 2024 4:37 PM

By: sayum


Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction of Anoop for molesting an 11-year-old girl under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court confirmed the trial court's sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of ₹1,000. Anoop had been convicted under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting the minor by luring her to his room and pressing her chest.

"Modesty of a Child is Her Right," MP HIGH COURT

In its detailed judgment, the court reaffirmed the principle that the modesty of a woman, irrespective of age, is an essential right. Justice Prem Narayan Singh stated:

"The essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex. Even a child possesses modesty, which can be outraged. The act of pressing the prosecutrix's chest demonstrated the sexual intent of the appellant."

The incident occurred on August 28, 2018, when the appellant, Anoop, called the victim and her friend, Roshni, to his room under the pretext of having some work. Once inside, he locked the door and began molesting the victim. The girl managed to escape and later reported the matter to her mother, who lodged an FIR against Anoop. The police arrested Anoop and charged him under Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act.

The trial court convicted Anoop, and he was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the verdict, Anoop filed an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

During the appeal, the counsel for Anoop argued that the trial court had erred in its judgment. He claimed that the prosecution’s evidence was contradictory and unreliable. Anoop’s defense centered around the argument that the girl’s family had falsely implicated him due to old animosities. Furthermore, the defense questioned the age of the victim, arguing that the prosecution had failed to conclusively prove that she was a minor at the time of the incident.

The High Court carefully examined the testimonies of the victim (PW-3), her parents (PW-1 and PW-2), and other key witnesses. The court found the victim’s testimony to be consistent and unshaken during cross-examination. The girl had clearly described the sequence of events, detailing how Anoop molested her and then threatened her with violence if she disclosed the incident to anyone.

The court also relied on the scholar register provided by the victim’s teacher (PW-5), which confirmed that the victim was born on October 9, 2007, making her 11 years old at the time of the assault. The court rejected the appellant’s argument about the victim’s age, holding that the prosecution had sufficiently proved that she was a minor, thus bringing the case under the ambit of the POCSO Act.

In dismissing Anoop’s appeal, the court emphasized that his actions clearly demonstrated sexual intent. Citing Section 30(1) of the POCSO Act, the court noted that in such cases, a presumption of culpable mental state arises, and the burden shifts to the accused to prove otherwise. The court found no merit in the appellant's argument and held that Anoop's actions showed clear intent to molest the victim.

 

The Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the conviction under Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act was correct. The court ruled that the sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment was appropriate, given the nature of the crime and the age of the victim. Anoop’s appeal was dismissed, and he was ordered to serve his full sentence. The court underscored the importance of safeguarding children from sexual offenses and upheld the principles of justice.

Date of Decision: September 20, 2024

Anoop v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others​​

Latest Legal News