POCSO Act is Stringent in Nature, therefore a Stricter Proof is Required

Sujoy @ Sanjay Laltu Chakravarty vs State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC, Nagpur Bench



About/from the judgment:

Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 35 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 359, 363, 366, 366A, 375 & 376(2)(i) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Ss. 5(a)(i) & (I) r/w. 6 - Kidnapping from lawful guardianship - Age of the Victim Girl - Prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the age of the victim girl was below the age of 16 years, insofar as offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC and below the age of 18 years insofar as the offences punishable under Section 376(2) (i) of IPC and under Section 5(a)(i) and (I) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act are concerned.

Read the Judgment

Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law-related blogs and websites, we, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, Lawctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc.. Many of the judgments are also taken from them websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!

Formats for use
Please reload

Talk to our volunteer on our #Helpline


Single Helpline Number For Men In Distress In India

Join our mailing list!  Stay up-to-date on upcoming projects, offers & events.

  • Follow Daaman on Facebook
  • Follow Daaman on Twitter

©2018-2020 Daaman Welfare Society & Trust.

All rights reserved.

Beware, anyone can be a victim of gender bias in society and laws! 

Don't wait: Schedule a conversation with a trusted, experienced Men's Rights Activist to find out how only awareness is the key to fight and remove prevailing gender bias against men in society.