top of page
Promoting Harmony
Daaman
POCSO Act is Stringent in Nature, therefore a Stricter Proof is Required
Sujoy @ Sanjay Laltu Chakravarty vs State of Maharashtra
Bombay HC, Nagpur Bench
26/02/2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2018
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
bottom of page