Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“In most of the cases, we found that the age of the victim/child/girl is between 16 to 18 years and the age of the offender is 19 to 22 years. In our opinion, this is a serious issue and threat to the future of the youth of the country.”
The Court asserted that Judicial discipline requires coordinate benches to follow earlier decisions or refer the matter to a larger bench if there is disagreement.
The Court observed that the victim in her cross-examination had candidly spoken, that there was no talk between her and the accused regarding marriage proposal. Therefore, the sexual intercourse, if any, which occurred between them, is not a sequel of any allurement of marriage.
Kerala High Court instructed the Hospital to preserve all relevant blood samples and tissues to facilitate further medical tests, ensuring that the necessary forensic evidence is available for the ongoing legal proceedings.
In cases involving Section 376 IPC or the POCSO Act, Courts must exercise caution while quashing FIRs, as these offences impact societal interests. However, Delhi High Court acknowledged the unique circumstances where the petitioner and the prosecutrix, now married with children, had reached a settlement, balancing societal concerns with the realities of the parties’ lives.
The Trial Court did not notice the facts that the offence was committed in 2014 and at that time there was no such punishment as rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of natural life in Section 6 of POCSO Act.
One of the conditions imposed by the Court for granting bail is that applicant-accused shall not be in a physical relationship with the victim till they are legally married.
“Protecting children’s right is not just a legal obligation, it’s a moral imperative that directly impacts the future of our society … The right of protection includes freedom from all forms of exploitation, violence, abuse and inhumane or degrading treatment.”
A mother is sought to be prosecuted for delay in reporting of sexual offences on a child by her own husband, despite the fact that the mother herself was allegedly subject to severe abuse, sexual and otherwise, in her matrimonial home.
The Court remanded the matter back to the Children’s Court, directed the Sessions Court/POCSO Court to handover the charge sheet to the Children’s Court and the case registered before the Children’s Court was thus restored.
The complaint was lodged by the victim’s mother, leading to the registration of a case under IPC and POCSO Act.
The word ‘he’ in Section 3 of the POCSO Act could not be given a restrictive meaning to say that it referred only to a ‘male’.
Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Sections 376 (rape), 363 (kidnapping), and 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative assault). The decision was based on an amicable settlement between the parties, with no costs imposed on either side. This case underscores the court’s recognition of mutually agreed resolutions in certain criminal proceedings.
The Court in the impugned order had held that the petitioner watched a pornographic site, which would not become publishing or transmitting material as necessary under S. 67-B(a) and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
The physical contact made by the accused with the girls coupled with the words uttered by him could only lead to one inference that the touch was with sexual intent.
“The well-known principle of “Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty,” gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.”
The Court observed that the parents of the victims were illiterate and that the appellant’s allegations of false implications and extortion on the victim’s family’s part did not inspire any confidence as per evidence on record.
On 13-06-2024, the Additional City Civil and Session Court Judge NM Ramesh, issued an arrest warrant against BS Yediyurappa for a case registered under the Section 8 of the POCSO Act read with Section 354(A) of the Penal Code, 1860.
A case was registered under Section 8 of the POCSO Act read with Section 354(A) of the Penal Code, 1860 against BS Yediyurappa for allegedly assaulting a 17-year-old girl.
The Court opined that the prosecution did not place any material or evidence to conclude that reformation, rehabilitation, and social re-integration of the accused into society was not possible.