In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that High Courts cannot quash cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act based on settlements between the accused and the victim. The apex court set aside a Calcutta High Court order that had acquitted an accused in a POCSO case, emphasizing the need for proper implementation of victim protection laws.
Case Background:
The case (Criminal Appeal No. 1451 of 2024) arose from an appeal by the State of West Bengal against a Calcutta High Court judgment dated October 18, 2023. The High Court had acquitted an accused who was earlier convicted by a Special POCSO Court for offenses under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) and (3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The victim, a 14-year-old girl at the time of the incident, had left her home with the 25-year-old accused in May 2018. She later gave birth to a child fathered by the accused. The High Court, citing the victim’s continued residence with the accused and their child, had set aside the conviction.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Decision:
1. Quashing of POCSO cases: The Supreme Court held that High Courts cannot use their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to acquit an accused in POCSO cases based on settlements or consent.
2. Validity of conviction: The court restored the conviction under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(n) and (3) of IPC, stating, “On facts, there cannot be any dispute that the commission of the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act by the accused was duly proved”.
3. State’s responsibility: The judgment emphasized the state’s duty to protect and rehabilitate POCSO victims. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “It is the responsibility of the State to take care of helpless victims of such heinous offences”.
4. Implementation of laws: The court highlighted the importance of implementing Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act and relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act for victim care and rehabilitation.
Important Observations:
The court criticized the High Court’s judgment, stating, “The findings and observations in the impugned judgment, except the finding on the applicability of Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, cannot be sustained”.
It also noted, “The failure to do so will amount to a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the victim children under Article 21”.
Also Read
The Supreme Court has directed the formation of an expert committee to assist the victim in making an informed choice about her future. It has also ordered all states and union territories to ensure proper implementation of victim protection laws.
Parties and Counsel:
– Appellant: State of West Bengal
– Respondent: The accused (unnamed)
– Amicus Curiae: Ms. Madhavi Divan and Ms. Liz Mathew
– State Counsel: Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi
