Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

Supreme Court Slams ‘Non-Exploitative’ Defense in POCSO Case: ‘Courts Cannot Commit Violence Against the Law’

23 August 2024 1:01 PM

By: sayum


In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India overturned a contentious judgment by the Calcutta High Court that had acquitted an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The apex court, through a Suo Motu writ petition, strongly criticized the High Court’s reasoning, particularly its creation of the “non-exploitative sexual acts” category for minors, reaffirming the inviolability of the legal safeguards provided to children under the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case arose from a Criminal Appeal filed by the State of West Bengal, challenging the October 2023 judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which had acquitted an accused convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. The case involved a 25-year-old man and a 14-year-old girl who had given birth to a child as a result of the accused’s actions. The High Court had controversially acquitted the accused, terming the relationship as a "non-exploitative consensual sexual relationship."

The Supreme Court took serious exception to the High Court's judgment, which, according to the apex court, was laden with personal opinions and irrelevant commentary that undermined the established legal framework. The High Court’s introduction of concepts such as "non-exploitative sexual acts" and its leniency towards what it termed a "romantic relationship" between the minor and the adult were harshly criticized.

The Supreme Court stated, “We fail to understand how a sexual act, which is a heinous offence, can be termed as non-exploitative.” The court firmly established that under Indian law, consent from a minor, especially in cases involving sexual acts, is irrelevant and that the law unequivocally protects minors under the age of 18 from any form of sexual exploitation.

The apex court reaffirmed that any sexual activity involving minors, regardless of perceived consent or the nature of the relationship, constitutes a punishable offense under both the IPC and the POCSO Act. The court emphasized, “Penetrative intercourse with a woman under eighteen years of age, with or without her consent, constitutes an offense of rape,” dismissing the High Court’s attempt to soften the legal stance on the matter.

The judgment highlighted the mandatory nature of punishment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, which pertains to repeated rape.

Justice Abhay S. Oka, delivering the judgment, noted, “The courts must follow and implement the law. The courts cannot commit violence against the law,” underscoring the judiciary’s duty to uphold statutory provisions without letting personal opinions interfere.

This Supreme Court judgment serves as a powerful reminder of the non-negotiable legal protections afforded to minors under the Indian legal system. By overturning the High Court’s acquittal, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the strict enforcement of the POCSO Act and the IPC in cases involving sexual offenses against children. The decision is expected to have a significant impact on the judiciary’s approach to similar cases in the future, reinforcing the rule of law over subjective interpretations.

Date of Decision: 20 August 2024​.

In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents

Latest Legal News