“The victim was not kidnapped. The victim was not a minor.”: Uttarakhand High Court
April 28, 2024 2024-07-05 9:49“The victim was not kidnapped. The victim was not a minor.”: Uttarakhand High Court
“The victim was not kidnapped. The victim was not a minor.”: Uttarakhand High Court
By Praneetha Shivaprasad
A single judge bench of the Uttarakhand High Court overturned a conviction under the POCSO Act. The appellant was convicted under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO. The court overturned the conviction due to an inconsistency in the testimony of the survivor and conflict in the documents for age determination. The survivor stated that the relationship was consensual in the statement under section 164. The survivor contradicted her statements in the cross–examination. The court stated that the 164 statement is not only to be used to contradict testimony but can also be used to corroborate testimony. With regards to age determination, the documents were inconsistent stating that she was born in 2000, making her 16, 1992 or 1995. The court held that section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015 is the only means of determining the age of the survivor. The court ruled that the school register which claimed that the age of the survivor was 15 was admissible but did not have evidentiary value since neither the individual who made the entry nor the person who gave the birth was examined before the court. Moreover, inconsistent and contradictory testimony was provided by the witnesses regarding the age of the survivor. Hence, the court overturned the conviction. (Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2019)
