{"id":354519,"date":"2025-07-25T12:00:42","date_gmt":"2025-07-25T06:30:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=354519"},"modified":"2025-07-28T18:07:08","modified_gmt":"2025-07-28T12:37:08","slug":"delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Mere threat without intention to cause alarm does not constitute criminal intimidation\u2019: Delhi High Court upholds acquittal in POCSO case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In a criminal appeal filed by the State under Section 378<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (\u2018CrPC\u2019) , challenging the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 451<\/a> and 506<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (\u2018IPC\u2019) and Section 8<\/a> of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<\/a>,(\u2018POCSO\u2019), a Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna J., concluded that mere threats, if not made with the intention to cause alarm, would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation. The Court, therefore, held that no case under Section 506<\/a> IPC<\/a> was made out in this matter.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The Prosecution\u2019s case was that the accused has unlawfully entered the residence of a 14-year-old girl (minor) and sexually assaulted her and threatened to kill her if she talks about the incident to anyone. The principal witness in the case were the minor and a woman (PW 6), to whom the incident was first narrated. In his statement under Section 313<\/a> of the CrPC<\/a>, the accused denied all allegations and claimed he had been falsely implicated. He contended that the son of PW6, had purchased a plot in the accused\u2019s name, which PW6 later demanded be transferred to her. Upon his refusal, she had allegedly threatened to falsely implicate him and had conspired with the minor\u2019s father (her brother-in-law), to do so.<\/p>\n

In the judgment dated 25-01-2020, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) found inconsistencies between the minor\u2019s statement under Section 164<\/a> CrPC<\/a>, her deposition in court, and other versions on record, and concluded that there were inconsistent contradictions in the three statements, making them unreliable. Thus, concluding that the Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the accused’s acquittal<\/p>\n

The State filed an appealed against the acquittal of the accused on ground that the Trial Court gave undue weightage to the minor contradictions and variations in the statements of the minor girl.It was argued that despite such variations, the minor had clearly described the act of harassment, and her testimony had been corroborated by PW6, thereby supporting the Prosecution\u2019s case.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court observed major discrepancies in minor’s three statements, including contradictions about the nature of the assault, absence of physical struggle or injuries, and discrepancies in timing. Key testimony by PW6 also differed materially from the minor\u2019s versions. The delay in reporting, vague Police Control Room call, and lack of the accused\u2019s name in the initial report raised further doubts. Thus, the Court concluded that the ASJ rightfully observed material contradictions and improvements in the minor\u2019s statements and found them inconsistent with the testimony of PW6, rightly granting the accused the benefit of doubt.<\/p>\n

With regard to charges under Section 451<\/a> IPC<\/a> (house Trespass), the Court held that no offence was made out. The minor had consistently testified that she had opened the door and permitted the accused to enter the house. In view of this admission, the Court concluded that there was no unlawful entry or house trespass, and therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 451<\/a> IPC<\/a> were not satisfied.<\/p>\n

The accused was also charged under Section 506<\/a> of IPC<\/a> (Criminal Intimidation). The Court noted that, to establish an offence under Section 506, it must be proven that the accused had the specific intention to cause alarm to the minor. It held that mere issuance of threats, without the intention to cause such alarm, would not amount to criminal intimidation.<\/p>\n

Relying on Manik Taneja<\/span> v. State of Karnataka<\/span>, (2015) 7 SCC 423<\/a>, the Court reiterated that simply using abusive or threatening language without any intent to cause alarm, does not come within the scope of Section 503<\/a> IPC<\/a>. For a threat to qualify under this Section, it must be made with the intention to cause alarm to the person threatened or to coerce them into doing something they are not legally obligated to do, or to refrain from doing something they are legally permitted to do.<\/p>\n

The Court said that in the present case, the minor consistently stated that she has pushed the accused and ran out of the house and thereafter threatened by the accused. If the minor had left immediately on being allegedly sexually assaulted by pushing away the accused, where was the occasion for the accused to extend threat to the minor. Thus, making it clear that the sequence of events, does not clearly establish that the alleged threat was made with the intention to cause alarm. The Prosecution in the facts of the case has not been able to prove the offence under Section 506<\/a> IPC<\/a>. Given these contradictions and the lack of credible evidence to support the charge, the Court held that the Prosecution had failed to prove the offence under Section 506<\/a> IPC<\/a>. In light of these factors, the Court upheld the acquittal of the accused, and the appeal was subsequently dismissed.<\/p>\n

[State (NCT of Delhi) v. Jawahar Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4970<\/a>, decided on 18-7-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Petitioner:<\/span> Shoaib Haider, APP for State<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Hemant Singh and Urvashi Jain, Advocates<\/p>\n

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 \u00a0HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Code<\/a><\/p>\n

Buy Penal Code, 1860 \u00a0 HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"penal<\/a><\/p>\n

Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 \u00a0 HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"protection<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Court stated that if the minor left immediately on being allegedly sexually assaulted by pushing away the accused where was the occasion for the accused to extend threat. The sequence of events, as narrated by the minor, does not clearly establish that the alleged threat was made with the intention to cause alarm.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67522,"featured_media":354520,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[85951,85948,85952,85947,85949,66430,85950,45356],"class_list":["post-354519","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-acquittal-under-section-506-ipc","tag-criminal-intimidation-delhi-high-court","tag-delhi-hc-sexual-assault-acquittal","tag-intent-to-cause-alarm","tag-mere-threat-no-criminal-intimidation","tag-pocso-case","tag-section-451-ipc","tag-section-506-ipc"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi HC: Mere Threats Not Criminal Intimidation | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court upholds acquittal in a POCSO case, ruling that mere threats not criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC in absence of intent to cause alarm\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018Mere threat without intention to cause alarm does not constitute criminal intimidation\u2019: Delhi High Court upholds acquittal in POCSO case\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court upholds acquittal in a POCSO case, ruling that mere threats not criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC in absence of intent to cause alarm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-07-25T06:30:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-07-28T12:37:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/mere-threats-not-Criminal-Intimidation.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Niyati\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u2018Mere threat without intention to cause alarm does not constitute criminal intimidation\u2019: Delhi High Court upholds acquittal in POCSO case\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Niyati\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/\",\"name\":\"Delhi HC: Mere Threats Not Criminal Intimidation | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/mere-threats-not-Criminal-Intimidation.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-07-25T06:30:42+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-07-28T12:37:08+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/9fcdd3f9b1656d3c86b93c274ac0851e\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court upholds acquittal in a POCSO case, ruling that mere threats not criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC in absence of intent to cause alarm\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/mere-threats-not-Criminal-Intimidation.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/mere-threats-not-Criminal-Intimidation.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"mere threats not Criminal Intimidation\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018Mere threat without intention to cause alarm does not constitute criminal intimidation\u2019: Delhi High Court upholds acquittal in POCSO case\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/9fcdd3f9b1656d3c86b93c274ac0851e\",\"name\":\"Niyati\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3fb20d70fc1002554a7094c80f8d54c0f3dad0fd7c5b119db6833ce4c54a5115?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3fb20d70fc1002554a7094c80f8d54c0f3dad0fd7c5b119db6833ce4c54a5115?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Niyati\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/niyati\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi HC: Mere Threats Not Criminal Intimidation | SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court upholds acquittal in a POCSO case, ruling that mere threats not criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC in absence of intent to cause alarm","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018Mere threat without intention to cause alarm does not constitute criminal intimidation\u2019: Delhi High Court upholds acquittal in POCSO case","og_description":"Delhi High Court upholds acquittal in a POCSO case, ruling that mere threats not criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC in absence of intent to cause alarm","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-07-25T06:30:42+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-07-28T12:37:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/mere-threats-not-Criminal-Intimidation.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Niyati","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018Mere threat without intention to cause alarm does not constitute criminal intimidation\u2019: Delhi High Court upholds acquittal in POCSO case","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Niyati","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/","name":"Delhi HC: Mere Threats Not Criminal Intimidation | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/mere-threats-not-Criminal-Intimidation.webp","datePublished":"2025-07-25T06:30:42+00:00","dateModified":"2025-07-28T12:37:08+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/9fcdd3f9b1656d3c86b93c274ac0851e"},"description":"Delhi High Court upholds acquittal in a POCSO case, ruling that mere threats not criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC in absence of intent to cause alarm","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/mere-threats-not-Criminal-Intimidation.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/mere-threats-not-Criminal-Intimidation.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"mere threats not Criminal Intimidation"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/25\/delhi-high-court-mere-threat-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018Mere threat without intention to cause alarm does not constitute criminal intimidation\u2019: Delhi High Court upholds acquittal in POCSO case"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/9fcdd3f9b1656d3c86b93c274ac0851e","name":"Niyati","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3fb20d70fc1002554a7094c80f8d54c0f3dad0fd7c5b119db6833ce4c54a5115?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3fb20d70fc1002554a7094c80f8d54c0f3dad0fd7c5b119db6833ce4c54a5115?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Niyati"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/niyati\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/mere-threats-not-Criminal-Intimidation.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":275612,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/14\/pulling-the-dupatta-of-a-girl-amounts-to-offence-under-s-354-ipc-bombay-special-court-directs-compensation-of-rs-15000-to-the-minor-victim\/","url_meta":{"origin":354519,"position":0},"title":"Pulling the dupatta of a girl amounts to offence under S. 354 IPC; Bombay Special Court directs compensation of Rs 15000 to the minor victim","author":"Editor","date":"October 14, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 POCSO Special Court, at Fort, Gr. Bombay: In a case where charge sheet is filed against the accused for offences punishable under sections 354(A), (B), 504, 506 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), Priya P.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/POCSO-Special-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/POCSO-Special-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/POCSO-Special-Court-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/POCSO-Special-Court-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/POCSO-Special-Court-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6496,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/28\/posting-a-comment-complaining-against-the-laxity-of-administration-on-a-public-forum-meant-for-helping-the-public-would-not-amount-to-criminal-intimidation\/","url_meta":{"origin":354519,"position":1},"title":"Posting a comment complaining against the laxity of administration on a public forum meant for helping the public would not amount to criminal intimidation","author":"Sucheta","date":"January 28, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Deciding the present case where the question arose that whether posting a comment on a social networking site rebuking or complaining against the administration for poor provision of service is a crime, the Court observed that on a public forum meant for helping the public, posting such comment\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Supreme Court"","block_context":{"text":"Supreme Court","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/supremecourt\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":276235,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/28\/pocso-eve-teasing-and-roadside-romeos-need-to-be-dealt-with-heavy-hand-bombay-sessions-court-convicts-man-for-1-5-years-for-calling-a-minor-girl-an-item\/","url_meta":{"origin":354519,"position":2},"title":"[POCSO] Eve teasing and roadside romeos need to be dealt with heavy hand; Bombay Sessions Court convicts man for 1.5 years for calling a minor girl an \u201citem\u201d","author":"Editor","date":"October 28, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Sessions Court, Borivali Division, Mumbai: In a case filed by a minor girl against the accused for offences under Sections 354, 354-D, 504 and 506 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (POCSO), S. J. Ansari, J., convicted the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Eve-teasing-and-roadside-romeos-need-to-be-dealt-with-heavy-hand-Bombay-Sessions-Court-convicts-man-for-1.5-years-for-calling-a-minor-girl-an-item-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Eve-teasing-and-roadside-romeos-need-to-be-dealt-with-heavy-hand-Bombay-Sessions-Court-convicts-man-for-1.5-years-for-calling-a-minor-girl-an-item-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Eve-teasing-and-roadside-romeos-need-to-be-dealt-with-heavy-hand-Bombay-Sessions-Court-convicts-man-for-1.5-years-for-calling-a-minor-girl-an-item-1.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Eve-teasing-and-roadside-romeos-need-to-be-dealt-with-heavy-hand-Bombay-Sessions-Court-convicts-man-for-1.5-years-for-calling-a-minor-girl-an-item-1.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Eve-teasing-and-roadside-romeos-need-to-be-dealt-with-heavy-hand-Bombay-Sessions-Court-convicts-man-for-1.5-years-for-calling-a-minor-girl-an-item-1.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":219108,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/04\/del-hc-acquittal-of-rape-accused-upheld-where-minor-had-misrepresented-her-age\/","url_meta":{"origin":354519,"position":3},"title":"Del HC | Acquittal of rape accused upheld where minor had misrepresented her age","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 4, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0A Division Bench of Manmohan and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ. dismissed a criminal leave petition filed by the State challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 376, 366 and 363 IPC along with Section 6 of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":269255,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/29\/can-non-resistance-by-rape-survivors-be-the-ground-for-acquittal-for-the-accused-patna-high-court-decides\/","url_meta":{"origin":354519,"position":4},"title":"Can non-resistance by rape survivors be the ground for acquittal for the accused? Patna High Court decides","author":"Editor","date":"June 29, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Patna High Court: While dealing with a case of rape, A M Badar, J. observed that mere non-offering of physical resistance by a rape survivor cannot amount to the consent given by a woman for sexual activity under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (\u2018IPC'). An appeal was filed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Patna High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/patna_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/patna_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/patna_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/patna_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/patna_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":293207,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/26\/delhi-high-court-did-not-interfere-conviction-in-pocso-case-based-on-child-victim-testimony-not-expected-to-have-mathematical-precision-in-recapitulating-harrowing-incident-legal-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":354519,"position":5},"title":"[POCSO] Not expected for 7-year-old child to recapitulate the harrowing incidents with mathematical precision; Delhi High Court upholds conviction based on child testimony","author":"Arunima","date":"May 26, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court observed that it cannot lose sight of the fact that alleged offence was committed with a child victim of tender age who got frightened by the threats extended to him by the accused as well as by the alleged act of the accused and it is not\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/354519","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67522"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=354519"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/354519\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/354520"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=354519"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=354519"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=354519"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}