Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

SUPREME COURT ACQUITS APPELLANT IN POCSO CASE – PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH CRUCIAL ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court of India acquitted the appellant in a criminal appeal involving allegations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar, emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the charges and raised concerns about the failure of the prosecution to establish crucial elements of the case.

Citing the victim's contradictory statements and the absence of proper age determination documentation, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ms. E.R. Sumathy, the counsel representing the appellant, argued that the victim's initial statement, made under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, indicated her willingness to elope and marry the appellant. The court acknowledged the importance of the victim's statement but noted the lack of corroborating evidence and the subsequent retraction.

Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, in the judgment, highlighted the importance of following the prescribed procedure for age determination under the Juvenile Justice Act and the POCSO Act. The court found that the prosecution had relied on a transfer certificate, which did not meet the requirements of the law, and failed to provide other necessary documents or conduct appropriate medical tests to establish the victim's age.

Furthermore, the court stressed the need for concrete evidence of penetrative sexual assault and coercion, which are key elements of the POCSO Act. The medical examination revealed the absence of evidence to support these allegations, leading the court to question the applicability of the charges.

Justice S. Ravindra Bhat stated, "The prosecution was not able to establish that there was any penetrative sexual assault as a result of coercion or compulsion on the part of the appellant." The court further concluded that the charges under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act could not be sustained.

This verdict highlights the significance of presenting strong and reliable evidence in cases involving sensitive matters such as child sexual offenses. The court's decision reinforces the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and the necessity for a thorough examination of the evidence before imposing severe penalties.

The judgment referred to previous rulings in Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., and Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain v State of West Bengal to support its analysis and conclusions.

The appellant has been acquitted, and unless required in connection with any other case, will be set at liberty.

Date of Decision: July 18, 2023

YUVAPRAKASH   vs STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE     

Latest Legal News