Facts:

The case involved an appeal by the accused who was convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The accused had lured a four-year-old girl (the victim) to a secluded area and attempted to sexually assault her. The accused was caught in the act by members of the public, arrested, and charged under the POCSO Act.

The trial court found the accused guilty, sentencing him to life imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000.

The High Court dismissed the accused's appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.

Law:

• The case involves the application of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
• The accused was subsequently convicted by the Trial Court for offenses under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000.

Analysis:

• The Court acknowledged the seriousness of sexual offenses under the POCSO Act.
• It emphasized the vulnerability of girl children in society.
• The Court stated that no leniency should be shown to those who commit offenses under the POCSO Act.
• It mentioned that such crimes involve perverse lust for sex and harm innocent children.
• The Court cited earlier judgments emphasizing the need for special protection for child victims.
• It noted that often, minor victims find it difficult to withstand social ostracization.
• The Court stated that in cases under the POCSO Act, trust is betrayed, and social values are impaired.
• While considering mitigating circumstances, the Court acknowledged the accused's age (70-75 years) and his suffering from Tuberculosis (TB).
• The Court found that the minimum punishment for the offense under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was ten years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and could extend to life imprisonment.

Conclusion:

The Court held that given the seriousness of the offense and the vulnerability of the victim, no leniency should be shown to the accused. It noted the minimum punishment prescribed by the POCSO Act. Considering the accused's age and health condition, the Court reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to fifteen years of RI.

The fine imposed by the Trial Court was confirmed.

The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Facts:

The accused in this case was charged with the rape and murder of an eleven-year-old girl. The Allahabad High Court had granted bail to the accused.

The State filed an appeal against the High Court's bail order.

Issues:

• The State appealed against the High Court's bail order.
• The issue was whether the bail granted by the High Court was justified.

Law:

Section 161 of Cr.P.C and Bail: Statements made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) are not admissible in evidence but are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an accused in a bail application for grave offenses.

Analysis:

• The Supreme Court noted that the allegations against the accused were grave and could not be said to lack any supporting material.
• The Court emphasized that even though statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C may not be admissible in evidence, they are relevant in assessing the prima facie case against an accused in a bail application for serious offenses.
• The bail granted by the High Court was based on the accused's co-accused also being granted bail, which the Supreme Court found to be an insufficient ground for bail.
• The Court observed that the bail order had been influenced by observations made in a different context in the case of Data Ram vs. State of U.P., 2018 (3) SCC 2.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the bail order granted by the Allahabad High Court.

It noted the seriousness of the charges, the heinous nature of the allegations, and the severity of punishment in case of conviction. The Court also considered the accused's conduct of trying to evade the law by killing the child to avoid getting caught for rape and then attempting to conceal evidence.

The possibility of the accused fleeing to evade the process of law was also considered.

The bail was denied, and the appeal by the State was allowed.

Facts:

The accused, who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, was convicted under various sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The Madras High Court upheld the conviction.

Issues:

• The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside his conviction.
• The issue was whether the subsequent marriage and family life of the accused and the prosecutrix should impact the conviction.

Law:

Custom and Marriage in Tamil Nadu: The Supreme Court considered the custom in Tamil Nadu regarding the marriage of a girl with her maternal uncle.

Analysis:

• The appellant argued that he had married the prosecutrix after the offense, and they had two children together.
• The prosecutrix's statement affirmed that she and the appellant were leading a happy married life.
• The State opposed the appeal, arguing that the marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix was not legal.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the accused. The Court considered the unique circumstances of the case, including the subsequent marriage and the family life of the accused and the prosecutrix. It noted the custom in Tamil Nadu regarding the marriage of a girl with her maternal uncle. The Court emphasized that it could not disrupt the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix based on the ground reality. It also clarified that if the accused did not take proper care of the prosecutrix, she or the State could seek modification of the order.

In essence, the Court recognized the change in circumstances and the family life of the accused and prosecutrix, leading to the setting aside of the conviction.

Facts:

The case deals with the issue of a woman's right to seek legal abortion without requiring consent from her family or any extra-legal conditions. Registered medical practitioners (RMPs) have often insisted on compliance with additional conditions, such as family consent or documentary proofs, which are not legally required. The Supreme Court addresses this practice and emphasizes the importance of a woman's consent in abortion decisions.

Issue:

• The key issue is whether women seeking legal abortions should be required to obtain consent from their families or fulfill additional, extra-legal conditions.

Law: Right to Abortion and Consent:

• The case involves the interpretation of the law related to a woman's right to undergo an abortion and the necessity of obtaining consent from her family or complying with extra-legal conditions.

Analysis:

• The Supreme Court unequivocally states that a woman who seeks a legal abortion cannot be obligated to seek consent from her family or fulfill extra-legal conditions.
• The only consent that matters is that of the woman herself, or her guardian's consent if she is a minor or mentally ill.
• RMPs are directed to refrain from imposing extra-legal conditions when women seek abortion services. Their responsibility is to ensure compliance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act and its accompanying rules and regulations.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upholds a woman's right to make decisions regarding her own body, including the choice to undergo an abortion. Reproductive autonomy is recognized as a fundamental right, and the decision to have or not have an abortion should be solely determined by the pregnant woman without external interference.

The judgment emphasizes that women have the intrinsic right to choose abortion without the consent or authorization of third parties.

Facts:

The case involves the non-reporting of sexual assault against minor tribal girls by a medical practitioner who was aware of the incidents. An FIR was registered against unidentified persons for sexual offenses against the minor girls residing in a girls' hostel. The accused medical practitioner was later implicated based on the victim girls' statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The accused failed to report the sexual assault, a legal obligation under Section 19(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Issue:

• The central issue is whether non-reporting of sexual assault against minors, even when aware of the incidents, is a serious crime under the POCSO Act.

Law: Reporting Obligation and Consequences:

• The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act, which mandates the reporting of sexual offenses against children.
• Section 21 of the POCSO Act deals with the consequences of violating Section 19.

Analysis:

• The Supreme Court emphasizes the seriousness of non-reporting sexual offenses against minor children, characterizing it as a grave crime.
• Failure to report such crimes is often an attempt to shield offenders and prevent the law from taking its course.
• The Court underscores the critical importance of prompt and proper reporting of offenses under the POCSO Act.
• Reporting enables immediate victim examination, initiation of investigations, arrest of culprits, and the collection of essential evidence, such as medical examinations and clothing.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court sets aside the Bombay High Court's order that had quashed criminal proceedings against the accused. It reiterates that non-reporting of sexual assault against minor children, despite knowledge, is a serious crime.

The Court emphasizes the need for strict compliance with Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act, ensuring that those who fail to report such crimes are appropriately prosecuted under the law.