Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 11, 12 – Penal Code, 1860, Section 506 – POCSO – Contradictions and inconsistencies – Alleged sexual harassment transpired in a classroom on victim a 13 year old girl – For corroboration of the victim’s version, P.W.6 was brought in as a witness – Held that prosecution’s case has been marked by lacklustre efforts, revealing a poorly executed endeavour that gives rise to substantial doubts regarding the integrity of the case – The material contradictions apparent in the depositions of prosecution witnesses, including the victim, significantly undermine the credibility of the prosecution version – These inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative, render it considerably doubtful – On the face of such evident discrepancies, recording conviction becomes untenable, as the foundation of the case crumbles under the weight of doubt – While the actions attributed to A-1, as sought to be demonstrated by the prosecution, may fall within the purview of ‘sexual harassment’ under section 11 of the POCSO Act, the evidence in this case has been marred by inadequacies from the outset, evident in contradictions within statements and testimonies – The evidence led leaves reasonable suspicion as to whether A-1 was actually involved in any criminal act – Overt act attributed toA-2, the case against him does not justify a conviction under section 506I.P.C – Conviction of A-1 and A-2, as recorded by the Special Court and the sentence imposed upon them, since affirmed by the High Court, liable to be set aside. (Para 21 to 28)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 159 SC
2024 INSC 193]
Nirmal Premkumar & Anr. Vs. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police
Criminal Appeal No. 1098 of 2024-Decided on 11-03-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-159-SC.pdf
