SC Refrains From Sentencing POCSO Convict Married To Victim: 'She Didn't See It As Crime'
Last Updated:
The apex court said the victim did not see the act as a crime and endured more trauma from the legal and social consequences that followed.
The Supreme Court on Friday decided not to impose a sentence on a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) for having sexual relations with a minor girl, who is now married to him.
A bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the victim did not perceive the incident as a crime and had suffered more trauma from the legal and social consequences after the man was convicted.
'The final report concludes that though the incident is seen as a crime in law, the victim did not accept it as one. The committee records that it was not the legal crime that caused any trauma to the victim, but rather it was the consequence that followed, which took a toll on her," the bench observed.
The court also said the victim faced a constant battle with the police and the legal system to save the accused from punishment. 'The facts of this case are an eye-opener for everyone. It highlights the lacunae in the legal system," the bench said.
The Supreme Court exercised Article 142 of the Indian Constitution – which grants it the power to pass any order necessary to secure complete justice – to not impose any sentence on the man who was accused of sexual relations with the minor girl.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Brazil's court to make social media firms legally accountable for user posts
The majority of justices on Brazil's Supreme Court have agreed to make social media companies liable for illegal postings by their users, in a landmark case for Latin America with implications for U.S. top court decided to rule on two different cases to reach an understanding of how to deal with social media companies as reports of fraud, child pornography and violence amongst teenagers become rampant online. Critics warn such measures could threaten free speech as platforms preemptively remove content that could be Mendes on Wednesday became the sixth of the court's 11 justices to vote to open a path for companies like Meta, X and Microsoft to be sued and pay fines for content published by their users. Voting is ongoing, but a simple majority is all that is needed for the measure to pass. The ruling will come after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned of possible visa restrictions against foreign officials allegedly involved in censoring American citizens. One such official is reportedly Brazilian Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has taken measures against social media outlets he deemed to have not complied with Brazilian only dissenting Brazilian justice so far is Andr Mendona and his vote was made public last week. The court is yet to decide how such regulations will be said free speech on social media is key for the publication of information that 'holds powerful public institutions to account, including governments, political elites and digital platforms.'Justice Flvio Dino, the first to vote on Wednesday, reminded his colleagues that recent cases of school shootings in Brazil were created on social media. He read out postings by one user who said he was happy by watching families of dead children 'weeping, bleeding, dying.''I think social media have not made humanity closer to what it has produced in best fashion,' he social media proposal would become law once voting is finished and the result is published. But Brazil's Congress could still pass another law to reverse the current legislation states that social media companies can only be held responsible if they do not remove hazardous content after a court debate on regulating social networks increased in Brazil in the aftermath of the Jan. 8 riot in 2023, when supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro ransacked Congress, the presidential palace and the Supreme Court in the capital, need to be proactive in regulating content, said Alvaro Palma de Jorge, a law professor at the Rio-based Getulio Vargas Foundation, a think tank and need to adopt certain precautions that are not compatible with simply waiting for a judge to eventually issue a decision ordering the removal of that content,' Palma de Jorge ruling brings Brazil's approach to big tech closer to the European Union's approach, which has sought to rein in the power of social media companies and other digital platforms automatically accountable for content on their platforms may infringe freedom of speech as they could resort to preemptively removing content, according to the Sao-Paulo based Brazilian Chamber of Digital Economy, an organization that represents sectors of the digital economy.'This type of liability favors large companies with robust legal structures, to the detriment of smaller, national players, which negatively impacts competition,' said the organization, adding that the decision may increase barriers to Watch
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Pocso case: Proceedings against Indian Institute of Science assistant prof to continue
Bengaluru: The high court has refused to quash legal proceedings against an assistant professor at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru, who is facing trial under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act. The case stems from an incident on Sept 30, 2018, during a birthday party of the accused's daughter. It is alleged that during a 'Ghost House' game held in a dark room, the professor inappropriately touched a 10-year-old girl who was among the guests. Following a complaint from the child's father, Jalahalli police filed a chargesheet against him. The accused has denied the allegations, claiming that he merely stepped in to control the children's play. He argued that the complaint was lodged to harass him and cited several procedural flaws in the investigation. These included the similarity of witness statements, alleged irregularities in the court's cognisance of the case, the absence of a medical examination of the child, and inordinate delays in the trial process. However, the additional state public prosecutor countered that around eight children had come forward with similar accounts of inappropriate conduct by the accused, underscoring the need for a full trial. A fter reviewing the case materials, Justice M Nagaprasanna acknowledged the uniformity in the witness statements recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Yet, he held that even a single credible account is sufficient to warrant a trial under the Pocso Act. He also stated that the lack of medical examination does not invalidate the prosecution's case if other substantial evidence is available. The court underlined that Sections 7 and 8 of the Act define sexual assault as involving inappropriate touching of a child's private parts. It concluded that, if proven, the allegations against the accused would fall squarely within these legal provisions. The court added that the consistency in witness statements is an issue to be addressed during the trial, not a valid reason for dismissing the case at the pre-trial stage. Given that the matter has been pending since 2018, the high court directed the trial court to expedite the case and complete proceedings within three months.
India Today
6 hours ago
- India Today
Forced narco tests illegal, results not admissible: Supreme Court
Setting aside a high court order allowing narco-analysis tests on accused persons without consent, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asserted that involuntary or forced tests are not permissible under the law. The Supreme Court held that compelling an accused to undergo narco-analysis, without free and informed consent, violates the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the report of such an involuntary test or any information discovered as a result is not admissible as evidence in criminal or other proceedings," the bench clarified. The order came days after a Patna High Court order accepting a police officer's submission to subject all accused persons and witnesses in a criminal case to narco-analysis testing. The submission of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer was accepted during the hearing of a bail plea filed by the its ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its landmark 2010 judgment in Selvi and Others v State of Karnataka, which held that forcibly subjecting individuals to narco-analysis, polygraph, or brain mapping tests was unconstitutional. The court reiterated that these techniques, if not voluntarily undertaken, breach personal liberty and the right against safeguards laid down in the Selvi case judgement:No lie detector or narco-analysis test shall be conducted without the accused's voluntary accused must be informed of the legal, emotional, and physical implications of the to legal counsel must be provided before deciding on consentConsent must be recorded before a Judicial guidelines for polygraph tests should be followed, and similar protocols adopted for narco-analysis and brain mapping top court further clarified that an accused may voluntarily choose to do so at an appropriate stage, such as during the presentation of defence evidence in a even in such cases, the court emphasised that there is no indefeasible right to undergo narco-analysis. It also said that judicial authorisation must account for the totality of circumstances, including safeguards and genuine InMust Watch
