Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Rajasthan High Court criticised the Investigating Officer and Judicial Magistrate, who failed to follow the mandatory provisions contained under Sections 24(5) and 33(7) of POCSO Act and Section 228-A of the IPC.
The version of the informant/victim must be considered with utmost care before discerning it. In fact, if the version of the informant/victim inspires confidence and appears to be trustworthy, credible, unblemished and of sterling quality, no further corroboration is required.
The Special Court for POCSO cases convicted the Tamil languageNadu teacher under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment and the High Court affirmed the conviction.
On 15-03-2024, the Chief Justice issued a Notification regarding adoption of Practice Directions for Criminal Appeals/Revisions or Criminal Petitions filed under the POCSO Act in Gauhati High Court and the Outlying Benches.
Kerala High Court hinted that evidence of sexual assault victim could be the sole basis of conviction, provided that the same was of a ‘sterling quality’.
Delhi High Court issued a mandatory reminder, rather than a gentle reminder that it is essential to emphasise that in cases involving offences of serious nature, particularly those falling under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, no form of mediation is permissible.
“In order to prosecute and punish a witness for offence of perjury, it must be established that the statement was made by him deliberately and consciously, which subsequently, was found to be false as a result of comparing it with other unimpeachable evidence on record”.
Madhya Pradesh High Court granted bail to the accused based on the examination of key witnesses and his extended period of incarceration.
The Court considered the grant of bail on account of all the relevant factors, gravity and nature of the offence, the extent of punishment, if enlarged on bail, may abscond or tamper with the evidence and witnesses, etc.
Calcutta High Court noted the rising trend of consensual sexual relationships among adolescents and recognized the need to address such cases within the legal framework.
Supreme Court directed NCPCR to formulate model guidelines after due consultation with the Central and State Governments for the States and Union Territories to frame their rules respecting the support persons under Section 39 of POCSO Act.
“The High Court would be empowered to exercise the powers when it finds that the decision impugned is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person would have ever arrived at.”
“Justice can be said to have been approximated only when the victims are brought back to society, made to feel secure, their worth and dignity, restored. Without this, justice is an empty phrase, an illusion.”
“While balancing the right of the accused to a fair trial and upholding the intent of the legislation, the courts are duty bound to remain sensitive to the plight of the seven-year-old sexual assault victim.”
Kerala High Court scrutinized the definition of ‘sexual assault’ and expressed that the same has to be construed as sexual offence against a victim, including sexual harassment.
The Court found that there was absence of concrete proof of age of the minor victim, therefore, the charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was not proved, instead the appellant was convicted under Section 376(1) of the IPC.
Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the impugned FIR and its subsequent criminal proceedings by the prosecutrix aged about 17 years 10 months.
Supreme Court regarded the result of ossification or bone test in the instant matter, as the most authentic evidence for being corroborated by the examining doctor as well.
Bombay High Court pointed out the personal interaction with the victim and her statements confirmed consensual relationship with the accused, but the rigors of POCSO Act did not permit quashing of proceedings because any kind of sexual indulgence with a minor fell within the ambit of Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.
The Court found that none of the acts of the convict would come within the definition of ‘rape’ under Section 375 of the IPC or ‘penetrative sexual assault’ under Section 3 of the POCSO Act.