Kota Coaching

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) – Case Laws

Supreme Court on POCSO Act, 2012

The increase in sexual crimes against children led to an uproar for enactment of a special law relating to protection of children from sexual offences which included not only sexual assault but also child pornography and it’s storage. Also, the Act provides for punishment in regard to abetment or attempt of any of the offences punishable under the POCSO Act, 2012 as well.

However, the same was not always the case. Before the enactment of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 the matters pertaining to sexual crimes against children were dealt under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Let’s discuss some case which have been dealt by the Supreme Court before and after enactment of POCSO Act, 2012.

Before POCSO:-

Gurcharan Singh v. State Of Haryana

A girl under 16 years was ‘forcibly taken by the accused to his fields,outside the village where he committed rape on her. The court ruled that mere absence of marks of violence on the victim is immaterial because she was under 16 years of age. More importantly, it ruled that the victim cannot be considered as an accomplice to the Act.

Mathura Rape Case (Tuka Ram And Anr v. State Of Maharashtra)

The Mathura rape case was an incident of custodial rape in India on 26 March 1972, wherein Mathura, a tribal girl who was a minor at the time, was allegedly raped by two policemen on the compound of a Police Station in a district of Maharashtra. After the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, there was public outcry and protests, which eventually led to amendments in Indian rape law via The Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983.

Harpal Singh & Anr. v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the FIR in case of rape of a 16 year old girl. The court mentioned that it is common that since the honor of the family is involved, family members took some time to decide whether the matter needs to be taken to the court or not. The court also emphasized that since it was proved that the girl was below 16 years of age, her consent in sexual activity was irrelevant. The court also ruled that delay in reporting of the case will not affect the case if a reasonable explanation can be given.

State Of Haryana v. Prem Chand And Others

In a case of rape, the court ruled that “the character or reputation of the victim has no bearing or relevance either in the matter of adjudging the guilt of the accused or imposing punishment.” It went on to characterize the ‘character’ of the victim as irrelevant as a mitigating or extenuating circumstance.

Sakshi v. Union of India

The NGO Sakshi filed a writ petition in Public Interest Litigation to broaden the definition of rape in cases involving children where the child is abused by insertion of objects into the vagina or insertion of the male organ into body parts such as anus or mouth. The Supreme Court issued valuable guidelines for trial of rape and sexual abuse which concern children. These are known as the Sakshi guidelines:

  1. A screen or an arrangement where victim or witnesses do not see the body or face of the accused.
  2. Questions put in cross examination on behalf of accused, if they relate directly to the incident, must be given in writing to the Presiding Officer of the court who may put them to the victim/witnessed in a language that is clear and not embarrassing.
  3. Victims of child abuse or rape should be allowed sufficient breaks as and when required during the testimony.

After POCSO:-

Jarnail Singh v. State Of Haryana (2013)

The Supreme Court observed that the procedure used to determine the age of a child in conflict with the law, as provided by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, can be followed in cases falling under the POCSO Act, 2012.

Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union Of India And Others (2018)

The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to be followed by Special Courts while trying a case under the POCSO Act, 2012, so that the trial is completed within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence

Nipun Saxena v. Union Of India (2019)

The Supreme Court released a set of guidelines in relation to Section 23 of the POCSO Act, 2012 holding the publisher or owner of the media, studio, or photography facility jointly and severally accountable for his employee’s act/omission. The Apex Court released a set of guidelines which are provided hereunder:

  1. No one may broadcast the victim’s name in print, electronic, or social media, or even in a distant way, divulge any details that may lead to the victim’s identification among the public.
  2. In cases where the victim is deceased or mentally ill, the victim’s name or identity should not be revealed, even with the consent of the next of kin, unless circumstances justifying the disclosure persist, which should be decided by the competent authority, the competent authority, in this case, was the Sessions Judge.
  3. FIRs for offenses under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-AB, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 376-DA, 376-DB, or 376-E of the IPC, 1860 as well as violations under POCSO Act, 2012, are not to be made public.
  4. If a victim files an appeal under Section 372 CrPC, 1973 the victim is not needed to reveal his or her identity, and the appeal will be handled as per the law.
  5. All papers in which the victim’s identity is exposed must be kept under a sealed cover as much as possible.
  6. All authorities to whom the victim’s name is provided by the investigating agency or the Court are likewise obligated to keep the victim’s name and identity secret and not to reveal it in any way except in the report, which must be delivered to the investigating agency or the Court.
  7. All the States & Union Territories were requested to set up at least one ‘One-Stop Centre’ in every district within one year from the present case’s judgment date.

Attorney General For India v. Satish And Anr. (2021)

The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgment in the case of Satish Ragde v. State of Maharashtra (2021), which had ruled that grabbing a child’s breasts without “skin-to-skin contact” constituted molestation under the POCSO Act, 2012.

The Apex Court emphasized that Section 7 covers both direct and indirect touch, and the High Court’s interpretation trivializes and legitimizes undesirable behavior that undermines a child’s dignity and autonomy.

We the Women of India v. Union of India (2023)

The Supreme Court directed that the state must provide ‘support persons‘ for child victims of sexual offenses and the discretion of parent’s should not interfere with the same.

Click Here to know more about ALLEN ACE RJS Courses

Aditi Jodha

Training & consulting aspirants for Judicial and Civil Services at ALLEN ACE Jaipur. Aditi Jodha is an active researcher on a variety of legal domains. Her blogs are the result of her keen insight into law as a discipline of academia, which have a plethora of knowledge on competitive exams and legal consultation.

Recent Posts

Big Breaking JEE Advanced 2025:Now Three attempts in JEE-Advanced

JEE-Advanced 2025 website launched IIT Kanpur to hold JEE Advanced 2025 Exam The website of…

9 hours ago

10 Mistakes to Avoid in JEE Main Preparation

Avoiding these Common Mistakes will make a Huge Difference to your JEE Main Preparation &…

11 hours ago

JEE Main 2025: NTA Changes the Tie-breaker Rule for Equal NTA Score

AIR-1 will Come on Perfect Score of 300 Out of 300 Application for the country's…

17 hours ago

JEE Main 2025: Confusion of OBC and EWS Category Students Increases

More Than 1.05 Lakh Students Have Applied So Far The application process for the January…

2 days ago

JEE Main 2025 Exam Schedule Out, Check here

The National Testing Agency (NTA) has announced the dates of the JEE Mains 2025 examination…

1 week ago

JEE Main 2025: NTA Releases Guidelines for PwD Students

NTA to Declare Exam and Application Dates Soon National Testing Agency, NTA recently released its…

2 weeks ago