Spread the love

In a recent development, the High Court has dismissed the appeals filed by the convicts in a Special POCSO case (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, dated 17.07.2018.The prosecution’s case, summarized briefly, involved the registration of a crime at Chawani Police Station against accused individuals Rupchand, Baban (now deceased), Machindra, and Shaikh Sattar. The charges included offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the POCSO Act. The victim, referred to as PW1, alleged that on 21.09.2015, while she was with her friend PW6 on Tisgaon road, the accused approached them. Accused no.1, Rupchand, allegedly raped the victim while the others beat PW6.During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence from 10 witnesses, including medical reports, panchanamas, and the testimonies of the victim and her friend. The trial judge convicted the accused based on the evidence presented. The convicts, through their respective counsel, challenged the verdict in the High Court. One counsel argued that the implication was false, pointing to inconsistencies in the victim’s behavior and asserting that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The other counsel claimed that his client was not adequately represented during the trial. The High Court, in its detailed analysis, found that the prosecution had successfully established the victim’s age to be below 18 at the time of the incident through medical evidence and dismissed the contention that the identification of the accused was unreliable. The court highlighted the corroborative value of the medical examination, victim testimony, and the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and appreciated the evidence, and therefore, both appeals were dismissed. The court affirmed the conviction of the accused individuals in the Special POCSO case.

CASE NAME: Rupchand s/o Tekchand Tirchhe V The State of Maharashtra


Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *