Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
The appellant preferred a criminal appeal against the judgment dated 21.06.2023 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sheohar, acquitting respondents nos. 2 to 6 of charges under Sections 363, 366-A, 34, 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 9, 10, and 11(1) of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act in a case involving the alleged kidnapping and rape of a minor girl.
The Patna High Court, after perusing the Trial Court's judgment and the record, found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor at the time of the occurrence. The Medical Board assessed the victim's age as between 17 to 19 years, while the prosecution relied on a school certificate showing 15-16 years; however, the Headmaster who issued the certificate was not examined, and the admission register was not produced. Further, the victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. made no allegation of kidnapping or rape, whereas two years later she changed her version entirely before the Trial Court, rendering her an unreliable and untrustworthy witness.
The High Court held that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for acquitting the accused could not be faulted and upheld the order of acquittal, finding no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment below.
Catchwords:
acquittal · POCSO Act · kidnapping · rape · minor victim · age determination · Medical Board · school certificate · unreliable witness · contradictory statements · benefit of doubt · Prohibition of Child Marriage Act · court marriage
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's
judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.
