Delhi HC: Non-Proof of Hearing Notice Dispatch Doesn’t by Itself Show no Personal Hearing Was Given  ||  Delhi High Court: No Construction or Residence Allowed on Yamuna Floodplains, Even For Graveyards  ||  J&K High Court: Right to Speedy Trial Includes Appeals; Closes 46-Year-Old Criminal Case Due to Delay  ||  J&K High Court: Courts Must Not Halt Corruption Probes, Refuses to Quash FIR  ||  J&K&L HC: Matrimonial Remedies May Overlap, But Cruelty Claims Cannot be Selectively Invoked  ||  Delhi High Court: Customs Officials Acting Officially Cannot be Cross-Examined as of Right  ||  J&K&L HC: Second Arbitral Reference is Maintainable if Award is Set Aside Without Deciding Merits  ||  J&K&L HC: Gold Voluntarily Given to Customer is 'Entrustment'; Theft Excluded from Insurance Cover  ||  Delhi HC: Working Mothers Cannot be Forced to Bear Full Childcare Burden While Fathers Evade Duty  ||  J&K&L HC: Arbitral Tribunal Not a “Court”; Giving False Evidence Before it Doesn’t Attract S.195 CrPC    

Ganesan Vs. State Represented by it Inspector of Police - (Supreme Court) (14 Oct 2020)

Conviction Can Be Based On Sole Testimony Of Victim If Reliable And Trustworthy

MANU/SC/0763/2020

Criminal

The Appellant – original accused has preferred the present appeal, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The Appellant herein – original accused was tried by the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”). The Appellant has vehemently submitted that, no sufficient opportunity was given to the accused before passing the impugned judgment and order.

It is true that, PW2¬ mother of the victim has turned hostile. However, PW3¬ victim has fully supported the case of the prosecution. She has narrated in detail how the incident has taken place. She has been thoroughly and fully cross¬-examined. There is no good reason not to rely upon the deposition of PW3 – victim. PW3 aged 15 years at the time of deposition is a matured one. She is trustworthy and reliable. As per the settled proposition of law, even there can be a conviction based on the sole testimony of the victim, however, she must be found to be reliable and trustworthy.

The law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix." Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused, relying upon the deposition of PW3 – victim. The learned trial Court has imposed the minimum sentence provided under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the learned trial Court has already shown the leniency. At this stage, it is required to be noted that allegations against the accused which are proved from the deposition of PW3 are very serious, which cannot be permitted in the civilized society. Therefore, considering the object and purpose of POCSO Act and considering the evidence on record, the High Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act and has rightly sentenced the accused to undergo three years R.I. which is the minimum sentence provided under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : CONVICTION   EVIDENCE   CREDIBILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved