Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.30 seconds)Section 29 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra vs Sujay Mangesh Poyarelar on 19 September, 2008
16. It is trite law that this Court must exercise caution and should
only interfere in an appeal against acquittal where there are substantial
and compelling reasons to do so. At the stage of grant of leave to
appeal, the High Court has to see whether a prima facie case is made
out in favour of the appellant or if such arguable points have been
raised which would merit interference.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar: (2008) 9
SCC 475 held as under:
The State Of Maharashtra vs Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar on 9 July, 2009
20. As the entire case of the prosecution as well as the grounds of
challenge are based on the statements of the material witnesses,
including the victim and her family members. Considering the
judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh
Poyarekar (supra), it is imperative to consider their evidence before
determining whether leave ought to be granted to the State.
Section 378 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Altaf Ahmed @ Rahul vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 December, 2020
34. Insofar as the argument regarding the presumption of guilt
under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is concerned, the same comes
into play once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts. It can
be rebutted by discrediting the witnesses through cross-examination as
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR CRL.L.P. 602/2019 Page 13 of 14
Signing Date:17.03.2025
16:19:49
well [Ref. Altaf Ahmed v. State (GNCTD of Delhi): 2020 SCC
OnLine Del 1938]. In the present case, as noted by the learned Trial
Court, there are grave inconsistencies in relation to spot of incident as
well as the time of incident. Moreover, as discussed above, the
presence of the accused at the spot has been found to be doubtful. It
was in such circumstances that the learned Trial Court opined that
while the accused had not led any defence evidence to corroborate his
version of being falsely implicated due to religious acrimony, the case
of the prosecution was doubtful and the guilt of the accused had not
been proved beyond a shadow of doubt.