Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024: POCSO Act

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012Sections 4, 6, 29 and 30 - Presumption under the POCSO Act – Applicability and Conviction - Sentence Modification - Socio-Economic Considerations - Parole Denial - The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 364, and 377 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act for the aggravated penetrative sexual assault and murder of a four-year-old child. Foundational facts, including the post-mortem evidence and circumstantial factors, justified the presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, with the accused failing to rebut this presumption. The Court emphasized the diabolic nature of the crime, which involved enticing the child under false pretenses, brutal sexual assault, and merciless strangulation. While affirming the conviction, the Court set aside the death penalty imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court, holding that the case did not fall within the "rarest of rare" category. Considering mitigating factors, including the appellant's mental health challenges, socio-economic background, and good conduct in prison, the sentence was modified to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 25 years without remission. The Court applied the principle of proportionality, emphasizing the need to balance public confidence in justice with the possibility of reformation. The fine amounts imposed by the lower courts were waived in light of the appellant's financial constraints. The concurrent nature of the sentences under various sections was maintained, reflecting an approach that aligns with the principle of justice tempered with humanity. A related Special Leave Petition challenging the denial of parole was dismissed as the judgment rendered the issue moot but left room for the appellant to seek remedies as per law. Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1004Whether a compromise between the accused and the complainant in a case involving serious offenses under the POCSO Act can justify quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482, Cr. P.C. Whether such offenses can be treated as private disputes capable of settlement. Held, offenses under the POCSO Act, particularly those involving allegations of pressure to prevent reporting of crimes, cannot be treated as private disputes or minor compoundable offenses. A compromise between the accused and the complainant's family cannot justify quashing proceedings when the alleged offense has serious societal implications. The power under Section 482, Cr. P.C., cannot be invoked to quash proceedings for heinous offenses, as deterrence and societal interest must be prioritized. The POCSO Act was enacted to safeguard children from sexual offenses, and offenses under its purview are not merely private matters but have significant social ramifications. The statement of the complainant indicating pressure from the accused to refrain from lodging a report further justifies the continuation of criminal proceedings. Reliance was placed on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan to emphasize that heinous offenses cannot be quashed solely on the basis of compromise. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings was set aside. The investigation and proceedings were directed to continue in accordance with the law. The Court reiterated that a victim's parent cannot settle disputes involving serious offenses on behalf of the victim. Courts must safeguard children's interests and ensure justice is not compromised by private settlements. Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 865Section 4 - Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 376D and 354 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 389, 357A and 357B - The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court for gang rape (Section 376-D IPC), outrage of modesty (Section 354 IPC), and sexual offences against a minor under the POCSO Act, receiving a cumulative sentence of 20 years imprisonment with fines. The High Court dismissed his application for suspension of sentence and bail under Section 389 CrPC. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. Whether the appellant should be granted suspension of sentence and bail. Whether the Sessions Court erred in not awarding victim compensation under Section 357A CrPC and POCSO Rules. Held, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granting suspension of sentence and bail, citing: The appellant had already served over half of his sentence. Co-accused had been granted similar relief by the High Court. Low probability of sentence enhancement by the High Court. The Court also directed : Sessions Courts to mandatorily consider awarding victim compensation under Section 357A CrPC and POCSO Rules in cases involving sexual offences, particularly against minors and women. High Courts to ensure implementation of victim compensation schemes, such as Maharashtra's...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024: POCSO Act

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags