Sariyat Sk. v. State of West Bengal
Case brief
What is this about?
Appellant challenging sexual assault conviction. Court upheld conviction under POCSO Act.
What did the court decide?
Criminal Appeal No.598 of 2016 dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.
What the court decided
In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side
The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
C.R.A. No.598 of 2016
Sariyat Sk. Vs.
The State of West Bengal
| For the appellant | : Mr. D. Mukherjee, Mr. Manas Kumar Das, Mr. Asraf Mandal |
|---|---|
| For the State | : Mr. Ranabir Ray Chowdhury, Mr. Mainak Gupta |
| Hearing concluded on | : 07.09.2021 |
| Judgment on | : 09.09.2021 |
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J:-
1. The present appeal has been preferred against a judgment and order of conviction against the appellant, sentencing the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for five years for an offence punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Assault Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’) as well as to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-(five thousand), in default of payment, rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for six months more.
2. The initial charges levelled against the appellant included Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and the Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether conviction under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is valid when the specific charge was not framed but the court altered it under Section 216 of Cr.P.C.
Whether the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act applies when the prosecution fails to prove the place of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the partial rupture of the victim's hymen alone is sufficient to raise a presumption of sexual assault without other physical injuries.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Sariyat Sk.
- respondent
The State of West Bengal
Coram
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Calcutta HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRA/598/2016
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court