0

Sikkim High Court Ruling On POCSO Acquittal Appeal : Verdict On Child Sexual Assault Case.

Blog ,

Case title: State of Sikkim v. Pintso Bhutia

Case no: Crl.A. No.11 of 2022

Order on: May 23, 2023

Quorum: THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI

Fact of the case:

The case involves an appeal filed by the State of Sikkim against the acquittal of the respondent, Pintso Bhutia, in a Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case. The prosecution’s narrative states that an FIR was lodged by the Ward Panchayat on behalf of the victim’s mother, alleging that the respondent attempted to rape the victim, a 10-year-old girl, at her aunt’s house. The victim reported that the respondent pinched her breast, causing her pain. Medical examination revealed tenderness on the victim’s breast.

Issues framed by the court:

  • Whether the impugned Judgment acquitting the respondent can be considered as perverse, meaning “against the weight of evidence”.
  • Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to convict the respondent under Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act.
  • Whether formalities prescribed under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was complied with or not, as it was the duty of the Court to go through the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement.

Legal provisions:

Section 378(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This provision deals with appeals against acquittal filed by the State.

Sections 8, 9(m), and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): These sections define various sexual offenses against children and prescribe penalties for the same.

Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with sexual harassment and prescribes punishment for the same.

Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with recording of confessions and statements by the Magistrate.

Contentions of Appellant:

The victim, a 10-year-old girl, accused the respondent of sexually assaulting her by pinching her breast. The FIR was lodged immediately after the incident, and medical examination confirmed tenderness on the victim’s breast. The victim’s consistent statement and corroborative evidence from witnesses support the prosecution’s case. The trial court’s acquittal of the respondent is obstinate and against the weight of evidence. The Appellant argued that the respondent should be convicted under Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act.

Contentions of Respondents:

The respondent denied the allegations and claimed he was falsely implicated. Inconsistencies in the victim’s statement and lack of evidence from eyewitnesses cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. The victim’s statement changed between the FIR, Section 164 CrPC statement, and trial, undermining her credibility. Witness testimonies were not consistent and failed to establish the respondent’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court’s acquittal was justified, and the appeal should be dismissed.

Court Analysis:

In this case, The court noted that the victim’s statement was consistent and corroborated by other witnesses. The court found the respondent’s defense unconvincing and noted discrepancies in his statements. The court observed that the victim’s tender age and the nature of the offense required careful consideration of her testimony. The court referred to precedents to establish that a victim’s testimony, if cogent and consistent, can lead to a conviction. The court found the respondent guilty under Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act and set aside the trial court’s acquittal. The court ordered the respondent to surrender for sentencing.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh

Click here to read the judgement

0

Supreme Court Acquits Accused of Stalking and Intimidation Post-Marriage: Offenses Deemed Personal in Light of Union

Blog, Supreme court , , ,

Supreme Court Acquits Accused of Stalking and Intimidation Post-Marriage: Offenses Deemed Personal in Light of Union

Case title: DASARI SRIKANTH VS STATE OF TELANGANA
Case no.: SLP (Criminal) No(s). 2122 of 2024
Dated on: 14TH May 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice SANDEEP MEHTA AND Mr. Justice B.R. GAVAI

FACTS OF THE CASE
This appeal is preferred by the appellant for assailing the judgment dated 27th June, 2023 passed by the High Court of the State of Telangana at Hyderabad partly allowing the Criminal Appeal No.178 of 2021 preferred by the appellant, upholding his conviction for offences under Sections 354D and 506-Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘IPC’), but reducing the sentence of imprisonment for both the offences to three months. The accused appellant was tried by the Special Fast Track Court, Suryapet(hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’). Vide judgment dated 9th April, 2021, the trial Court acquitted the accused appellant for the offences under Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(hereinafter being referred to as ‘POCSO Act’) but at the same time, convicted and sentenced him for offences under Sections 354D and 506-Part I IPC. the High Court reduced the sentences awarded to the accused appellant to three months on both counts. A pertinent plea has been raised in this appeal that the appellant and the complainant(victim) have married each other on 6th August, 2023 as per the Hindu rites and customs and that the marriage has also been registered in the Office of Registrar of Hindu Marriages and Sub Registrar, Kodad, District Suryapet, Telangana. An affidavit of the complainant affirming this fact was placed on record. Accordingly, vide order dated 16th April, 2024, we directed the learned Standing Counsel for the State of Telangana to verify the fact regarding the marriage of the appellant and the complainant from the concerned police station.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The appellant submitted that is evident from the record, the appellant was initially charged for the offences under Sections 354D and 506 of IPC and Section 11 read with Section 12 of POCSO Act. learned trial Court did not find the offences under the POCSO Act proved and acquitted the accused appellant from the said charges. The offences under Section 354D IPC and Section 506 IPC are personal to the complainant and the accused appellant. The fact that the appellant and the complainant have married each other during the pendency of this appeal gives rise to a reasonable belief that both were involved in some kind of relationship even when the offences alleged were said to have been committed. the appellant and the complainant have married each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger. As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court and modified by the High Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Ms. Devina Sehgal, learned counsel representing the State has filed a compliance affidavit sworn by the Sub-Inspector of the police station concerned who has verified the fact that the appellant and the complainant have solemnized marriage with each other and the marriage was registered as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at the Office of Registrar and Sub Registrar, Kodad, Suryapet District, Telangana on 23rd, September, 2023. The copy of the marriage certificate is annexed with the said affidavit. the impugned judgment dated 27th June, 2023 passed by the High Court and judgment dated 9th April, 2021 passed by the trial Court are hereby quashed and set aside.

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 354D IPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-(in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month)
Section 506 Part I IPC: Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 500/-(in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days)
Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012: Whoever, commits sexual harassment upon a child shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant for assailing the judgment dated 27th June, 2023 passed by the High Court of the State of Telangana at Hyderabad partly allowing the Criminal Appeal No.178 of 2021 preferred by the appellant, upholding his conviction for offences under Sections 354D and 506-Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘IPC’), but reducing the sentence of imprisonment for both the offences to three months. The offences under Section 354D IPC and Section 506 IPC are personal to the complainant and the accused appellant. The fact that the appellant and the complainant have married each other during the pendency of this appeal gives rise to a reasonable belief that both were involved in some kind of relationship even when the offences alleged were said to have been committed As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court and modified by the High Court. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. The appeal is allowed in these terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP

Click here to read the judgement

0

The Delhi High Court Upholds Victim’s Testimony Quoting it as “Ring of Truth” in Sexual Assault Case: Cited Reason as Lack of Evidence to Rebut the Statutory Presumptions

Blog, Delhi High Court , , , ,

Case Title – Miss P & Ors. Vs. State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Case Number – CRL. A. 459/2020

Dated on – 14th May, 2024

Quorum – Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain

FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Miss P & Ors. Vs. State of NCT Delhi & Anr., the Accused (the Respondent herein) and his wife (PW-3) worked as a security guard. They had a daughter (victim herein) and a son (PW-4). The victim reported in the police station concerning her father repeatedly assaulting her sexually for quite some time. The victim claimed that one day, when the accused was jobless, he did not allow her to go to school. Since her mother worked outside and her brother was away for school, during the noon hour, when she was alone at home with him. The accused made her sleep alongside him. The accused then touched her private parts and when she resisted, he rebuked her. Further, the accused sexually assaulted the victim and the victim divulged about the incident to PW-3. When PW-3 confronted the accused regarding the alleged incident, the accused scolded the PW-3 as well as the victim. The victim unveiled that she has been getting assaulted sexually for the last two years and the accused assaulted her lastly on the 4th of January, 2013. The victim was sent for medical examination and documents concerning her age was collected and the statements of the victim and PW-4 was recorder under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Accused was, thus, arrested based on the FIR lodged by the victim, chargesheet was instituted and the accused was sent for trial. The accused was duly charged for the offences under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused claimed the trial pleading not guilty under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973. The Learned Trial Court while acquitting the Accused, held that the story of the prosecution did not inspire confidence and was not credible.

ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the delay in reporting the sexual assault to the authorities is considered fatal to the case of the prosecution, given the explanation of the threats by the Accused to the victim?
Whether the sole testimony of the victim, if found credible, cogent, and unambiguous, is sufficient to convict the Respondent without the need for additional corroboration?
Whether the testimonies of the Victim, PW-3 and PW-4 are consistent and corroborate each other sufficiently, despite any minor discrepancies or contradictions?
Whether minor discrepancies or contradictions identified by the Trial Court in the testimonies are material enough to render the case of the prosecution unbelievable?
Whether the accusations were fabricated due to the matrimonial discord, with the victim being tutored by her mother to falsely implicate the Respondent?
Whether the fact of the victim being a minor at the time of the alleged assault impacts the credibility and handling of her testimony?

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Recording of confessions and statements
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Power to examine the accused
Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes that the Accused person to be competent witness
Section 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 prescribes the Meaning Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Offences
Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 prescribes the Punishment Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Offences
Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 prescribes the Presumption as to certain offences
Section 30 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 prescribes the Presumption of culpable mental state
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for Rape
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for criminal intimidation

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly and gave undue weight to trivial contradictions and discrepancies and that the testimonies of the victim, PW-3 and PW-4 corroborate each other without inherent discrepancies or contradictions which would arise suspicion.
Further it was contented that the Accused threatened to kill the victim in case of any disclosure of the matter of sexual assault done by the Accused on the Victim, causing the delay in institution of the FIR and that it is justified by the fear instilled in the victim by the Accused.
Moreover, it was contented that according to the legal precedents, conviction can be rested solely on the testimony of a sexual assault victim if it is credible, cogent and unambiguous and that the testimony of the victim is considered credible and does not require corroboration, specifically since the assault occurred within the four walls of the house.
At last, it was contented that there is no plausible reason for a school going girl to falsely accuse her father of such grave offence and that the minor conflicts between the parents of the victim are not sufficient reasons for the victim to fabricate such severe accusations.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Trial Court thoroughly analysed the evidences and rightfully concluded that there were significant contradictions, which undermine the case of the prosecution and that the case is fabricated due to the matrimonial discord, with the wife using the daughter to wrongfully implicate the Respondent.
Further it was contented that the delay in reporting was not explained adequately, raising doubts about the veracity of the accusations and that the testimonies of the victim, PW-3 and PW-4 are asserted to lack credibility due to unexplained material contradictions and inconsistencies.
Moreover, the respondent contented that the victim was tutored to make fake accusations as a tool in the marital discord between the Respondent and his wife.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Miss P & Ors. Vs. State of NCT Delhi & Anr., the court noted that the Victim testified about the sexual assault incident by the accused detailing specific acts and threats used to silence her and that the victim provided a consistent account of these assaults continuing almost daily for two years. The court stated that the victim has been consistent across her initial statement to the police as well as the magistrate and the minor inconsistencies and discrepancies are considered trivial and do not undermine the overall credibility of her account. The court also noted that the testimonies provided by the PW-3 and the PW-4 corroborated the account of the victim especially regarding the incident on the night of 18th January, 2013 and the abusive behaviour of the accused. The court stated that the observation of the Trial Court was deemed inconsequential and did not undermine the substance of the accusation. The court also cited several precedents where the Supreme Court emphasized the reliability of the testimony of the victim in the cases concerning sexual assault and highlighted that minor contradictions should not discredit the account of the victim if it inherently seems truthful. The court stated that the burden of rebutting the presumptions in the POCSO Act lies on the accused which must be done beyond any reasonable doubt. The court reassessed the testimonies and found them credible and consistent despite the minor discrepancies and acknowledged the corroborative evidences such as the medical examination reports. The court further acknowledged that the delay in reporting the sexual assault is common due to the societal pressures and fear of stigmas. The court thus upheld the case of the prosecution stating that the testimony of the victim was credible and that the defense failed to furnish any substantial evidence to rebut the statutory presumptions.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana
Click Here to View Judgment

0

POCSO: The mandatory reporting under Section 21 of the POCSO Act should not be confused with delay in reporting or failure to report : Delhi High court

Blog, Delhi High Court , ,

 

POCSO: the mandatory reporting under Section 21 of the POCSO Act should not be confused with delay in reporting or failure to report : Delhi High court

Case title: Jasvinder Kaur & Anr vs State& Anr.
Case no.: CRL. REV.P. 401/2020 & CRL.M.A. 17563/2020, CRL.M.A. 3620/2022
Dated on: 07TH May 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Amit Sharma.

FACTS OF THE CASE
The present petition Respondent no. 2 sent a complaint dated 10.09.2018 to the Director, Directorate of Education, Delhi alleging that his son (heretofore referred to as Master “VA” / PW-1), a minor aged about 12 years then, studying in class 7th in a public school had been sexually assaulted by few of his classmates in the preceding year [the name of the survivour and the school are withheld to protect the identity of the survivour in accordance with section 23 of the POCSO Act] and that when Respondent no. 2 approached the school management with the issue and persisted with his adamant efforts requesting for rustication of the 5 alleged CCLs involved in the incident; the management responded to the same with rustication of “M” and “R” and with issuance of warning to the 3 other CCLs. Furthermore, in the aforesaid complaint, it was stated that even after the alleged incident leading to rustication and warning, school authorities and especially one Ms. J. K. S. (name withheld), Teacher-in-Charge of the school continued to mete out different treatment to the survivour (Master “VA” / PW-1), who intentionally was made to sit at the back of the classroom secluded from other students despite his poor eyesight and was failed in class VII. CRL. REV.P.401/2020. One copy of the aforementioned complaint was sent to the DCP, Central District, Darya Ganj, on the basis of which, FIR no. 421/2018 under Sections 377/34 of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (heretofore referred as “POCSO Act”) was registered in PS Karol Bagh against the CCLs on 02.10.2018 (Annexure C-3), which was further referred to Juvenile Justice Board where it is currently pending. During investigation, on 06.10.2018, statement of the survivour “VA” (PW-1) under 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (heretofore referred as “Cr.P.C.”) was recorded; where he corroborated the allegations made in the complaint regarding forceful unnatural sex by 5 of his classmates.
He further corroborated to the inequitable and exclusionary treatment meted out to him by the school authorities including the Vice-Chairperson and the Teacher-in-Charge, Ms. J.K.S. On further investigation, all 5 CCLs were apprehended. The Principal and Vice-Chairperson Section 21 POCSO Act were thereafter framed against the petitioners. The petitioners in their application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. prayed for impleadment of Respondent no. 2 (PW-2) and Ms. G.K. (name withheld) as accused(s) in the case under Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act; however, the same was dismissed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), THC (Central), Delhi on 21.09.2020 on the ground that inculpatory statement of Respondent no. 2 (father of the survivour/PW-2), who is a prosecution witness cannot make him liable to be arrayed as an accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. (Annexure A-1). Hence, the present revision petition.namely Jasvinder Kaur, W/o Gurpreet Kaur, R/o GH13/84, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi (petitioner no. 1) and Harvinderjeet Singh, S/o Sardar Satwant Singh, R/o I-16/390, Military Road, Anand Parbat, Karol Bagh (petitioner no. 2) were given notices under section 41A of the Cr.P.C. Chargesheet was filed. Charges under Section 21 POCSO Act were thereafter framed against the petitioners. The petitioners in their application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. prayed for Impleadment of Respondent no. 2 (PW-2) and Ms. G.K. (name withheld) as accused(s) in the case under Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act; however, the same was dismissed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), THC (Central), Delhi on 21.09.2020 on the ground that inculpatory statement of Respondent no. 2 (father of the survivour/PW-2), who is a prosecution witness cannot make him liable to be arrayed as an accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. (Annexure A-1). Hence, the present revision petition.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that they had only received a complaint of bullying amongst students of the class of the survivour, which was subsequently resolved by holding a meeting on 14.07.2017. Respondent no. 2 who is the father of the survivour was satisfied with the resolve made out in the issue by the school authorities, so much so that he had provided a letter of satisfaction to the school authorities on 15.07.2017 (Annexure D-4) assuring not to take any legal action against the school authorities. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that Respondent no. 2‟s (complainant/ explicit “admission” of the “knowledge” he had regarding commission of the sexual assault one year back does not provide him a leeway under POCSO Act and he is equally liable to inform the police about the incident as per the mandate of Section 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act, as Section 21 of the act renders “any person” liable for failure to report the case, which includes parents of the survivour as well. Furthermore, it is submitted that there was a delay of 13 months on behalf of Respondent no. 2 in reporting the alleged incident to the police, who conveniently made the complaint when his son, i.e., the survivour (PW-1) was rusticated from the school on non-payment of his yearly fees.
It is further submitted that the intention of the legislature behind framing such a stringent law as that of POCSO Act was to protect the children from sexual abuse, in which the perpetrators sometimes happen to be close relatives/parents of the children; therefore, both Section 19 (1) which mandates reporting and Section 21 which makes non-reporting punishable have been worded with “any person”. It is thus submitted that Respondent no.2 (the father of the survivour/PW 2) who is a prosecution witness in this case should be arrayed as an accused and there should not be any immunity given to him under the aegis of Section 132 of the Evidence Act as procedural law is always subservient to substantive law. Reliance was placed on Saiyad Mohammad Bakar El- Edroos (dead) by LRs vs. Abulhahabib Hasan Arab and others AIR 1998 SC 1624. Since the complainant admitted voluntarily of his knowledge about the alleged incident in his complaint in the preceding year, it can be used as evidence against him in both civil and criminal proceedings. Section 132 of the Evidence Act protects against self-incrimination; however, in consideration of the above circumstances, statement given by Respondent no. 2 (father of the survivour/PW-2) cannot be construed as self-incriminatory.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Learned APP for the State submitted that the petitioners have exhausted all their remedies, including challenging the order on charge and even for recalling of PW-2 (father of the survivour) for further examination. It is further submitted that Respondent no. 2 came in possession of the knowledge of the alleged incident from one Ms. G.K., i.e., mother of the survivour‟s friend, Master “MS”, who in turn informed him and the school authorities. 9. It is further submitted that the school authorities had called the father (PW-2) and he was forced to sign the satisfactory letter dated 15.07.2017. Besides, in their testimonies, both the survivour child (PW-1) and the father (respondent no. 2) have explained the circumstances and corroborated the contents of the initial complaint. It was also submitted that the survivour has himself in his statement deposed about the acts of mistreatment by the Principal madam, the Vice-Chairperson of the school (the petitioners herein) and one J.K.S., the Teacher-in-Charge. It is further submitted that complaint dated 10.09.2018 was addressed to the Director, Directorate of Education, Delhi and was also sent to the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor and the DCP, Central District, Darya Ganj, on which the aforementioned FIR was registered. Learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent no. 2 submitted that “mandatory reporting” under Section 21 of the POCSO Act should not be confused with “delay in reporting” or “failure to report”, because if the “mandatory reporting” provision is given utmost importance, then the legislative intent of the framers as far as the best interest and primary well-being of the child are concerned, would be defeated.
It is further submitted that the petitioners have blatantly revealed the identity of the survivour and respondent no. 2 which stands in contravention to the provision of POCSO Act and a catena of judgements. It is further submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and the Court of Sessions under Section 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. can only be invoked by the High Court or the Court of Sessions for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or proprietary of any finding.

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding.
Section 23 of the POCSO Act: No person shall make any report or present comments on any child from any form of media or studio or photographic facilities without having complete and authentic information, which may have the effect of lowering his reputation or infringing upon his privacy.
Sections 377 of the IPC: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine or both.
Section 34 of the IPC: when a criminal act is done by several persons with a common intention each of the person is liable for that act as it has been done by him alone.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The perusal of the aforesaid provisions reflects that the reporting of the nature of incident as mentioned hereinabove is mandatory. Keeping in view of the object of the aforesaid sections, a timely intervention is necessary and important. But the aforesaid provision provides for punishment in case of non compliance of the provisions of Section 19 for reporting an offence and not a belated one. As has been noted in the impugned order that the charges qua the petitioner were framed vide order dated 18.04.2019 under Section 21 of the POCSO Act, which was challenged by way of revision petition before this Court, which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.02.2020. Initially, the application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners was against respondent no. 2 herein and one Ms. G.K, i.e., mother of friend of the survivor, i.e., Master “MS”. It is a matter of record that the aforesaid Ms. G.K. is not being arrayed as a respondent in the present petition. the present case as noted above, respondent no. 2 had filed a complaint on the basis of which the present FIR had been registered, chargesheet was filed and the prosecution evidence stands complete. The delay in making the complaint by respondent no. 2 can be used as a defence by the petitioner during the course of the trial. It was pointed out by learned APP for the State, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant that sufficient explanations have been given by respondent no. 2 and the survivour during their testimony to explain the delay.
This Court is not entering into the issue whether the said explanation was satisfactory or not, as the same is to be determined by the Learned Trial Court if such defence is taken by the petitioner during the course of the trial. For the purpose of this petition, it is suffice to say that the complaint filed by respondent no. 2 will not bring the case of the latter under Section 21 of the Act, which provides for punishment for “failure to report”. In the present case, respondent no. 2 has reported the case to the concerned authorities, in pursuance of which, the present FIR was registered. the present petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by –HARIRAGHAVA JP

Click here to read the judgement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Delhi High Court Persuaded To Save Lives Of Accused Where Children About To Attain Majority Commit Offence In Love.

Blog , , ,

Case Title: SONU @ SUNIL Versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Case No: CRL.M.C. 4168/2022

Decided on: 26th April , 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Facts of the case

An alleged elopement and subsequent marriage were at issue in this case. Sonu @ Sunil, the petitioner, requested that the FIR and any further actions be quashed. Respondent no. 3, the complainant’s daughter, had married the petitioner voluntarily. Even though she was underage when she eloped and was married, respondent number three claimed to be content with her life with the petitioner and that they had two kids together.

Issues

1. Whether the FIR and the actions that followed be thrown out?

2. Whether the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no. 3 legally binding?

3. Whether the accused’s consent release him or her from criminal responsibility?

4. Whether there consent for the relationship?

Legal Provisions

•Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

•Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).

•Section 3 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 (Child Marriage Act).

Appellant’s Contentions

The relationship between Sonu @ Sunil and respondent no. 3 was consensual, according to the petitioner (appellant). They used their marriage license as proof of their lawful union. The petitioner contended that the FIR and the related legal actions ought to be nullified.

Respondent’s Contentions

The State (respondent) contested the petitioner’s claims. They argued that the minor girl’s consent did not absolve the accused of criminal liability. The respondent highlighted relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO)

Court Analysis and Judgement

The Delhi High Court took into account the arguments, the facts, and the law. In the end, the court dismissed the FIR and the actions that followed. The legitimacy of the marriage and the agreement of the young girl were important considerations in making this choice.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

Click here to read the judgement

1 2 3