Bombay High Court 2023 Digest On Special Criminal Acts - POCSO, UAPA, NDPS, PMLA

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20121. Kala Kendra's Performance License Can't Be Cancelled When Alleged Offence Under POCSO Act Not Committed On Premises: Bombay High Court Case Title: Natraj Sanskrutik Kala Kendra through its proprietor Vishal Nandkishor Gangawane v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 117 The Bombay High Court held that the performers license of Natraj Sanskrutik Kala Kendra, Nashik couldn't have been cancelled on the ground of crime registered against the proprietor as the alleged crime was not committed on the Kala Kendra's premises. Justice RG Avachat added that since the proprietor has been acquitted of the crime, the ground for cancellation does not exist anymore. 2. Bombay High Court Quashes Sexual Assault Case Under POCSO After Child's Mother Consents Case Title: Shiva Chanappa Odala v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 131 The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a 19-year-old male student under IPC and POCSO for the abduction and sexual assault of a minor teenager with the complainant's - mother's consent. Justices Nitin Sambre and SG Dige observed that the couple was on “friendly terms” and lived together without informing the girl's parents. And this miscommunication was the reason behind the FIR. 3. 3.5 Yrs Old Girl Not Introduced To Own Organs, Not Expected To Give Exact Description Of Private Parts, Identify Accused From Photo: Bombay High Court Case Title: Mahadev Gaur Bishwas v. State of Maharashtra & Anr Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 152 Observing that a three-year-old child cannot be expected to give an exact description of her private parts or identify the accused based on a photograph, the Bombay High Court upheld the 10 -year sentence of the child's neighbour under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). Justice Bharati Dangre upheld the neighbour's conviction by a Special Court for offences punishable u/s. 376(2) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for raping the victim girl by penetrating his finger into the vagina. “A little girl of 3 ½ years who is not even introduced to her own organs, cannot be expected to give exact description of her private parts, but in her statement recorded u/s.164, she has categorically stated that XXXX's father had touched her at the toilet place by his nails,” the judge observed 4. Six-Year-Old Not Expected To Know Culprit's Full Name: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Case Title: Satish s/o Ramesh Nandre v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 199 Observing that a 6-year-old child is not expected to know the full name of the person who raped her, the Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of a 38-year-old man who was booked after the child provided his nickname to the police. A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice YG Khobragade sitting at Aurangabad held the fact that the child's mother provided the full name from the nickname given by the child does not mean that the accused is being implicated in the crime. 5. POCSO Act Not Meant To Punish Minors In Romantic Relationships: Bombay High Court Case Title: Imran Iqbal Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 231 The Protection of Children of From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) was enacted to protect minors from sexual assault, not to punish minors in romantic or consensual relationship and brand them as criminals, the Bombay High Court said. Justice Anuja Prabhudessai observed thus and granted bail to a 22-year-old accused of kidnapping and rape of a minor under sections 363, 376 of the IPC and section 4 of the POCSO Act. 6. [POCSO Act] Mere Non-Eruption Of Wisdom Teeth Not Conclusive Proof Of A Person's Minority: Bombay High Court Case Title: Maherban Hasan Babu Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 243 The Bombay High Court held that the mere non-eruption of wisdom teeth of a person is not sufficient to prove that the person is a minor, while acquitting a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Justice Anuja Prabhudessai held that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was a child at the time of the incident. “Eruption of wisdom tooth may at the most suggest that the age of the person is 17 years or above but non-eruption or absence of wisdom tooth does not conclusively prove that the person is below 18 years of age. Therefore, the mere fact that wisdom tooth have not erupted is not of great importance in assessing the age”, the court held. 7. Juvenile Justice Board's Decision To Try Child As Adult Must Be Transparent And Fair: Bombay High Court Case Title: XXX v. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom)...

Bombay High Court 2023 Digest On Special Criminal Acts - POCSO, UAPA, NDPS, PMLA

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags