Moral Policing, POCSO & the Rule of Law
Watch Law Made Easy by SCC Times new episode which examines the legal framework under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Protection
Watch Law Made Easy by SCC Times new episode which examines the legal framework under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Protection
The Court noted that the applicant and the prosecutrix were in a love relationship for a few months prior to the date of the incident.
Supreme Court permits mother to relocate minor children to the UK, holds that frequent changes of employment cannot be termed “nomadic life” and considers pending POCSO prosecution while determining custody.
Supreme Court observed that while the accused being a teacher, needed to be more sensitive when dealing with young students, particularly girl students, his inappropriate conduct or use of corporal punishment, in the absence of the requisite sexual intent, could not by itself justify prosecution under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act.
The Kerala High Court upheld the conviction of an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, holding that intentional application of the mouth to the private part of a child squarely falls within the ambit of Section 3(d) of the Act and constitutes penetrative sexual assault.
The case depicts the tragic plight of a minor girl, aged 17 years, who was repeatedly subjected to sexual exploitation by her own father.
The Allahabad High Court quashed FIR under the POCSO Act, holding that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose in the peculiar facts of the case.
Kerala High Court held that in cases involving child victims, expressions used to describe the act of sexual assault must be interpreted in the factual context rather than through strict anatomical distinctions.
the High Court observed that there can never be more shocking heinous crime when a father is charged for committing sexual assault on his own daughter.
The Court held that absence of external injuries or pending forensic reports cannot, by themselves, justify grant of bail if the trial court had overlooked material circumstances bearing upon the gravity of the offence and the vulnerability of the victim.
The Kerala High Court upheld the conviction of a Madrassa teacher for offences under the POCSO Act, IPC, and Juvenile Justice Act, holding that a child survivor’s reliable and consistent testimony can independently sustain a conviction.
The Court clarified that the guidelines issued herein are not intended to be understood as exhaustive or inflexible guidelines to be applied mechanically in every case. The determination of such application was left to the sound discretion of the Court concerned, to be exercised on a case-to-case basis.
“Merely on the presence of semen on the pant of the victim and on the basis of the ocular evidence that some ‘bad work’ was done, it cannot be presumed that penetrative sexual assault to some extent was committed upon her.”
“The jurisprudential basis for the State being the prosecuting agency in criminal offences is to prevent a criminal prosecution from descending into an exercise in vengeance, where the victim goes baying-for-the-blood of the offender; and to maintain objectivity, neutrality, fairness and a sense of proportion in prosecution of an offender.”
The Court holds when the accused contends that the victim is not a child as defined in the POCSO Act, it is the prosecution’s duty to prove the victim’s age.
“Both the statutory framework under the POCSO Act and the Guidelines framed by this Court recognise that the use of technology and protective arrangements is an important tool to ensure that the testimony of vulnerable witnesses is recorded in a manner that is both — fair to the accused and sensitive to the needs of the victim.”
“The accused was only 20 years of age at the time when the offence took place, as reflected in the FIR, and was not released on bail even during Covid-19.”
The Court observed that the victim admitted being about 18 years old, while her father’s evidence on age was inconsistent. With contradictions between oral and medical evidence, minority was not proved, and hence, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 could not be invoked.
In the case at hand, it is evident from the Medical Ossification Report that the victim’s age is between 16-18 years.
“The social circumstances and the economic status of the family may have compelled the Prosecutrix and her mother to give contradictory statements or to turn hostile. However, in such cases the Court cannot completely ignore the scientific evidence which has come on record.”