Case Law On Sexual Offences And Pocso Act Enforcement
1. Lillu @ Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2017) — Supreme Court of India
Background:
The accused was charged under the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a minor girl. The conviction was challenged on the ground that the victim’s statement was contradictory.
Issue:
Whether minor contradictions in the victim’s statement would affect the conviction under POCSO.
Court’s Interpretation:
The Supreme Court held that minor contradictions or omissions do not vitiate the entire testimony of a child victim.
Emphasized the need to evaluate testimony with sensitivity to the victim’s age and trauma.
Confirmed that the child’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC is substantive evidence.
Conviction upheld, noting that delay in reporting or minor inconsistencies are common in such cases.
Significance:
Established that courts should adopt a child-friendly approach when assessing evidence.
Affirmed the weight of victim’s statement under POCSO.
Strengthened victim protection against hyper-technical scrutiny.
2. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh (2017) — Supreme Court of India
Background:
The accused was convicted under POCSO for penetrative sexual assault. The defense argued lack of medical evidence and consent.
Issue:
Whether absence of medical evidence or alleged consent can negate POCSO conviction.
Court’s Interpretation:
The Court held that absence of medical injury or evidence of penetration is not fatal to prosecution under POCSO.
Clarified that consent is irrelevant under POCSO for persons below 18 years.
Explained that medical evidence is corroborative, and the victim’s statement holds primacy.
Reiterated that the statutory presumption under POCSO places burden on accused to prove innocence.
Significance:
Affirmed strict protection for child victims.
Removed consent as a defense in POCSO offences.
Recognized challenges in obtaining medical evidence in child sexual assault cases.
3. Mukesh & Anr v. State for NCT of Delhi (2017) — Supreme Court of India (Nirbhaya Case)
Background:
Though primarily related to adult victim sexual assault, the Court discussed procedural safeguards under POCSO in similar cases involving minors.
Issue:
Ensuring speedy trial, privacy, and victim protection during POCSO trials.
Court’s Interpretation:
Directed that trials under POCSO must be completed within a year.
Emphasized the prohibition of victim’s identity disclosure and use of child-friendly procedures during trial.
Stressed that the courts must take cognizance suo moto and prioritize child protection.
Allowed video recording of testimony to avoid repeated victim trauma.
Significance:
Set procedural standards to enhance enforcement of POCSO.
Prioritized victim dignity and expeditious justice.
Impacted judicial practices nationwide in child sexual offence cases.
4. Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India (2018) — Supreme Court of India
Background:
This PIL challenged the delay in framing rules for POCSO implementation and inadequacy in victim protection mechanisms.
Issue:
Judicial role in ensuring robust enforcement of POCSO Act.
Court’s Interpretation:
The Supreme Court issued directions for effective training of police, judicial officers, and medical professionals dealing with POCSO cases.
Mandated establishment of special POCSO courts and child-friendly infrastructure.
Ordered constitution of Child Welfare Committees and safeguarding child victims from secondary trauma.
Directed strict monitoring of investigations and prosecutions.
Significance:
Strengthened institutional framework for POCSO enforcement.
Highlighted judiciary’s proactive role in child protection.
Improved standards for handling child sexual offence cases.
5. Pranav Suresh Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2021) — Supreme Court of India
Background:
Accused challenged his conviction under POCSO alleging procedural irregularities in recording child’s statement and police investigation.
Issue:
Whether procedural lapses in investigation or recording victim’s statement lead to acquittal under POCSO.
Court’s Interpretation:
The Court held that procedural lapses cannot be a ground for acquittal if the core evidence (victim’s testimony) is credible.
Clarified that minor procedural errors do not affect the trial’s integrity.
Emphasized the need to protect child victims from further trauma but not at the cost of justice.
Upheld conviction based on consistent and credible evidence.
Significance:
Emphasized substance over form in POCSO trials.
Balanced victim protection with the need for effective prosecution.
Reinforced judicial reluctance to allow procedural technicalities to hinder justice.
Summary of Judicial Principles Under POCSO Enforcement:
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Child-friendly approach | Courts adopt sensitivity in examining child testimony. |
| Consent irrelevant for minors | Any sexual activity with child (below 18) is an offence. |
| Medical evidence corroborative | Absence of medical injury does not negate child sexual assault. |
| Procedural safeguards | Timely trial, privacy, and victim protection prioritized. |
| Procedural lapses not fatal | Minor errors do not necessarily lead to acquittal if evidence is strong. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments