Statement Recorded U/S 164 Or 161 CrPC Can’t Be Treated As Substantive Evidence Without Opportunity Of Cross-Examination To Defence: Patna High Court
Case: Deepak Kumar Vs State of Bihar
Coram: Justice Alok Kumar Pandey
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1011 of 2022
Court Observation: “In the present case the prosecutrix was a literate girl as she has signed everywhere. Therefore, she must have been getting education somewhere. It is not the prosecution case or evidence that prosecutrix did not attend any school. The finding recorded by the doctor in the medical report which has determined the victim’s age to be 17-18 years based on radiological examination and opinion of the dentist is not available in the medical report and said finding in court opinion cannot be treated to be accurate for the purpose of applying the provision of POCSO Act,”
“From all counts from the analysis of evidence adduced during trial, contention of learned counsel of the appellant it is crystal clear that offence under Section 366A, 376 of the IPC and 4 of POCSO Act have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant.”
“In the result, in my view, the prosecution case suffers from several infirmities, as noticed above, and it was not a fit case where conviction could have been recorded.”
Previous Posts
Keywords
Statement Recorded U/S 164
