TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill View
Don't Miss
Advertisement

POCSO case accused acquitted

Punjab and Haryana High Court. File photo

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted an accused in a POCSO case, overturning his conviction and 20-year sentence by a Jalandhar court.

Advertisement

The Bench ruled the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. It held that reliance on a school record based on an unverified chowkidar’s report did not meet evidentiary standards under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. Granting the benefit of the doubt, the court concluded the prosecutrix was likely a major and capable of consenting.

Advertisement

Taking up the appeal, the Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari highlighted the decisive role of medical evidence in criminal trials. The Bench emphasised that independent medical testimony served as an objective corroboration tool, often resolving ambiguities in cases reliant on circumstantial or inconsistent evidence. Advocates Rajiv Joshi, Harshit Singla and Nikhil Chopra appeared for the accused in the matter. The Bench was also assisted by Viren Sibal as amicus curiae.

The Bench said the prosecution’s inability to substantiate the victim’s age, coupled with contradictions in injury patterns, weakened its case.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement