In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has sharply criticized a Calcutta High Court judgment for containing personal opinions and irrelevant observations while dealing with a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The apex court bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the High Court’s acquittal and restored the conviction of the accused in a POCSO case.
The case, titled “Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2023 with Criminal Appeal No. 1451 of 2024,” involved the State of West Bengal appealing against a Calcutta High Court judgment that had acquitted an accused convicted under POCSO Act and IPC provisions..
Background:
The case pertained to a 14-year-old girl who left her home in May 2018. She was found to be living with the 25-year-old accused, who was convicted by a special POCSO court for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The victim gave birth to a child. The High Court, while acquitting the accused, made several controversial observations about adolescent sexuality and romantic relationships.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Decisions:
1. High Court’s approach: The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of the High Court’s judgment, stating: “A judgment of the Court cannot contain the Judge’s personal opinions on various subjects. Similarly, advisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the Court by incorporating advice to the parties or advice in general. The Judge has to decide a case and not preach”.
2. Conviction under POCSO Act: The apex court restored the conviction under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of IPC, holding that consent is irrelevant in such cases involving minors.
3. State’s responsibility: The court emphasized the state’s duty to protect and rehabilitate POCSO victims, noting a “complete failure of the State machinery” in this case.
4. Victim’s welfare: The court directed the formation of an expert committee to ascertain the victim’s views on accepting state support, allowing her to make an informed choice about her future.
Important Observations:
The Supreme Court made several crucial observations:
“How can an act that is an offence punishable under the POSCO Act be described as ‘a romantic relationship’?”
“The Courts must follow and implement the law. The courts cannot commit violence against the law”.
Also Read
“The ultimate object of writing a judgment is to ensure that the parties before the Court know why the case is decided in their favour or against them”.
Parties and Lawyers:
– Appellant: State of West Bengal
– Respondent: The accused (unnamed)
– Amicus Curiae: Ms. Madhavi Divan and Ms. Liz Mathew
– State’s Counsel: Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi
