Protection of Children - The Legal Chamber

No Medical Injury? No Problem: Supreme Court Explains When Victim’s Word Wins in POCSO Cases

3Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

No Medical Injury? No Problem: Supreme Court Explains When Victim’s Word Wins in POCSO Cases

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 9(m) and 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for aggravated sexual assault on a child. The Court ruled that cogent ocular evidence from witnesses, including the victim's traumatized behavior, can sustain a conviction even if medical evidence does not show injury or penetration. The sentence was partially modified. Facts Of The Case: On August 15, 2021, the appellant, Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari, returned to the victim's home in Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, with her father and another man after collecting wood. After consuming alcohol, the victim's four-year-old daughter was sleeping inside. Around 4:30 p.m., the mother went inside to give food to the appellant and found him wearing only shorts, sitting near her daughter's legs. Th...

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction in POCSO Case After Marriage to Victim

The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to quash the appellant's conviction under POCSO and IPC, balancing societal deterrence with familial rehabilitation. The ruling prioritized "complete justice" and marital harmony post-marriage to the victim, imposing a lifelong condition of maintenance and non-desertion, while cautioning against precedent. Facts Of The Case: The appellant was convicted under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, receiving sentences of rigorous imprisonment for 5 and 10 years respectively. His appeal before the Madras High Court was dismissed in September 2021. During the pendency of this appeal, in May 2021, the appellant married the victim. Subsequently, they had a male child. The appellant's wife filed an affidavit expressing ...

Supreme Court Reduces Life Term in POCSO Case, Cites Constitutional Protection Against Harsher Retroactive Penalties

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act but modified the sentence. Relying on Article 20(1) of the Constitution, it held that the enhanced punishment of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, introduced by the 2019 amendment, could not be applied retrospectively to an offence committed prior to its enactment. Facts Of The Case: On May 20, 2019, the appellant, Saturam Mandavi, was accused of luring a five-year-old girl to his house and raping her while her parents were away attending a marriage ceremony in the village. The victim's mother, upon returning and being unable to locate her daughter, confronted the appellant at his house, after which he fled. An FIR was subsequently registered against him. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under S...