Category: POCSO

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(i) and 342 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 14(3)– The appeal involves a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) challenging the High Court’s order which set aside the Juvenile Justice Board’s decision and directed the trial to be conducted by the Children’s Court – The core issue is whether the CCL should be tried as a juvenile by the Board or as an adult by the Children’s Court, based on the preliminary assessment reports – The CCL’s counsel argued against the practice of passing orders without detailed reasons, the legality of the orders passed by the Board, and the deprivation of the CCL’s right to appeal – The State’s counsel contended that the Children’s Court can reconsider the Board’s decision and that the time limit for preliminary assessment under the Act is not mandatory – The judgment discusses the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, the mandatory or directory nature of the time period for preliminary assessment, and the exercise of revisional power by the High Court – The Court examines the procedural anomalies in the Act, the validity of the Board’s orders, and the remedy of appeal available to the appellant – The reasoning includes interpretation of the Act’s provisions, the role of the Board and the Children’s Court, and the application of the rules for preliminary assessment – The Court concludes with directions and reliefs based on the analysis of the arguments and legal provisions involved.

2024 INSC 387 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH HIS MOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before…

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Supreme Court found significant discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, including the victim’s, casting doubt on the prosecution’s version of events – Due to these inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside their convictions and sentences – The judgment emphasizes the importance of credible evidence and the consequences of accusations on the lives of individuals, highlighting the need for careful examination of testimonies in sexual harassment cases.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NIRMAL PREMKUMAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Dipankar Datta, K.V. Viswanathan and Sandeep…

Accused-appellant also providing for the day-to-day expenses of the victim and her child and therefore, further imprisonment will impact not only his family but also the victim’s – Ends of justice would be met if the period of imprisonment awarded against the accused-appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him – Conviction u/s. u/S. 3(a) r/w Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 is hereby confirmed – Sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone – Appeal allowed in part.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJASEKAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 363, 366-A, 376(A), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(k), 376(2)(m), 302 and 201 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 – Section 6 – Death sentence – Kidnapping, Rape and Murder of 3 months old girl child – Hurried Trial – Prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence in which the prosecution has to prove each link in the chain of circumstantial evidence and the important chains in the link are DNA report, FSL report and Viscera report – Trial has been conducted on day-to-day basis wherein the accused, who was in jail and defended by a counsel from legal aid, was compelled by the Trial Court to produce defence witness of his own in one day – – There was no opportunity, in the real sense, to the appellant to cross-examine the experts – Death sentence sentence set aside – matter is remitted back to the trial court for de novo trial

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NAVEEN @ AJAY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Prashant Kumar…

Rape with minor girl – Quantum of sentence – the mitigating circumstances which weigh in favour of the accused must be balanced with the impact of the offence on the victim, her family and society in general – Rights of the accused must be balanced with the effect of the crime on the victim and her family – This is a case which impacts the society – If undue leniency is shown to the respondent in the facts of the case, it will undermine the common man’s confidence in the justice delivery system –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Appellant Vs. GAUTAM S/O MOHANLAL — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 5 – Cancellation of bail – Gang-rape of a 15-year-old girl, threat of making video of rape recorded viral and extortion – Accused is the son of sitting MLA would disclose the domineering influence he would wield not only in delaying the proceedings but also in pressurizing the witnesses to either resile from their statement given during the course of investigation or pose threat to them from deposing against accused on their failure to act according to his dictates or induce them to testify as per his dictates or to help the defence of the accused – Bail cancelled – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHAGWAN SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DILIP KUMAR @ DEEPU @ DEPAK AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and…

POCSO – (CrPC) – Sections 161, 164, 173(2) and 482 – HELD prima facie case against the persons named therein as accused, the truthfulness, sufficiency or admissibility of the evidence are not matters falling within the purview of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and undoubtedly they are matters to be done by the Trial Court at the time of trial –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DR. MAROTI S/O KASHINATH PIMPALKAR — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…

You missed