Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 205, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 469, 471, 180, 120-B -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 23 -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 67B -- POCSO -- Permanent exemption from personal appearance – Charges framed on 14.07.2023 and only 5 PWs out of 15, have been examined so far – Personal appearance of the petitioners before the learned trial Court exempted subject to conditions.

(Para 6, 7)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 15, 18 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 342, 302, 201 – Acquittal -- POCSO – Murder -- Child in conflict with law/ CCIL – Preliminary assessment – Mandate of – Investigating Officer and Trial Court was aware of the fact that Accused/ appellant was juvenile -- In absence of a preliminary assessment being conducted by the Board under Section 15, and without an order being passed by the Board under Section 15(1) read with Section 18(3), it was impermissible for the trial Court to have accepted the charge sheet and to have proceeded with the trial of the accused – Held, procedure adopted by the Sessions Court in conducting the trial of the accused appellant is de hors the mandatory requirements of JJ Act -- Entire proceedings stand vitiated – Such an exercise at this stage would be sheer futility because now the appellant is nearly 23 years of age – Impugned judgment quashed and set aside -- Appellant ordered to be released forthwith.

(Para 25, 26, 38-51)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 29 – POCSO – Victim/ boy was 5 years old at the time of the alleged offence, therefore, Section 29 of the POCSO Act will be attracted, creating a presumption against the petitioner – In spite of his young age, PW2-victim maintained his stance during cross-examination, inspiring confidence in his testimony – While PW1-Doctor stated that charges of penetrative sexual assault are ruled out, his testimony is in the nature of an opinion – Evidence is not liable to be rejected merely because it has been led by a child witness – Conviction upheld.

(Para 7-9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Regular bail -- Speedy trial -- “Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception” -- Right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person -- However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts shall also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, which is “the presumption of innocence”, besides the gravity of offence(s) involved.

(Para 8)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 18 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 377, 511 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – POCSO -- Attempt to unnatural offence -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case -- Statement of victim (minor child), recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C, does not support the case of prosecution -- No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars, who has faced incarceration of about 07 months and 10 days -- Trial is not likely to conclude anytime soon – Bail allowed.

(Para 1, 12)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376AB -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3/4, 5(d)/6, 42 -- Rape of minor girl aged 7 years – Sentence of punishment -- Appellant was aged 40 year at the time of offence -- High Court commuted Capital sentence to life sentence -- Court are also to take into account the present age of the petitioner and the fact that he has already undergone the incarceration – Life sentence modified to a fixed term of sentence of 30 years with fine of Rs.1 lac.

(Para 7, 16, 17)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 376 AB – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3/4, 5(d)/6, 42 -- Punishment for rape on woman under twelve years of age – Sentence for 30 years -- Fine for medical expenses -- When a sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than 20 years which may extend upto life imprisonment is imposed, the convict is also liable to suffer a sentence of fine which shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim which quantified as Rupees One Lakh and the same shall be paid to the victim with respect to the conviction u/s 363, IPC -- No separate sentence for the aforesaid offence under POCSO Act is to be imposed on the petitioner-convict.

(Para 11, 16, 17, 20)

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994), Sections 4, 5(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 482 -- Determination of sex of the foetus – Quashing of FIR -- Cognizance on police report – Permissibility of -- A complaint has to be filed – Complaint has already been filed by the competent authority -- Police cannot register an independent FIR, on its own -- Police after registering FIR have presented the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., directly to the Court --  FIR quashed, however, the material collected by the police during the investigation of the said FIR permitted to be used as evidence in the complaint case, subject to the proof of the same, in accordance with law.

(Para 7-9)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – POCSO case -- Sodomy with minor boy – Acquittal -- Blood group of accused matched with the semen found on underwear of victim -- Affirmative incriminatory opinion recorded against the accused – Held, existence of semen stains on the underwear of the victim-boy, did require that the blood group of the victim also being collected by the investigating officer – In the event similarity of blood group of the accused and the victim conclusion would become sparked from the DNA specialist – Investigating officer did not collect the blood sample of the victim -- Resultantly, the opinion would beget thereto an exculpatory effect -- No apposite DNA profiling made – Benefit of doubt is to be accorded to the appellant-convict -- Victim completely resiling from his statements – Appeal allowed, convicting and sentence set aside -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 17-19)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 33(5) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 506 – Rape with minor – Re-summoning of POCSO victim for cross-examination -- Bar u/s 33(5) POCSO Act may not be absolute and balance of rights needs to be maintained u/s 33(5) of POCSO Act and Section 311 of Cr.P.C. -- Court’s discretion in exercising its power to re-summon a witness for cross-examination has to be exercised with circumspection, caution and utmost sensitivity – Crucial word used in Section 33(5) of POCSO Act is “called repeatedly” -- This Section thus has to be interpreted to balance and applied with the right u/s 311 Cr.P.C. of accused and right to fair trial of an accused depending on facts and circumstances of each case.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 33(5) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 506 – Rape with minor -- Re-examination of POCSO victim for cross-examination – Change of counsel -- Victim was only seven years of age at the time of incident in the year 2016 -- Child victim re-lived the trauma of perverse sexual assault upon her at a very tender age of seven years, once, when she was sexually assaulted, thereafter while recording her statement before the police and u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate and thereafter before the learned Trial Court while recording her evidence – Victim cannot be directed to appear once again after six years to depose about the same incident, only on the ground that the previous counsel had cross-examined the witness in a manner which the new counsel does not find sufficient or appropriate -- Change of counsel cannot be a ground for re-summoning of the witnesses -- Though the accused has to be granted and ensured a fair trial, it cannot mean being afforded unjustified repeated opportunities of cross-examination in every case to indicate fair trial.

(Para 13-21)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- POCSO Act is not gender based and is neutral as far as victim children are concerned.

(Para 14)

D. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Misuse of POCSO law – Ground of -- Any law, whether gender based or not, has the potential of being misused -- Legislature cannot stop enacting laws nor judiciary can stop applying such laws since they have been enacted to curb the larger menace of commission of such offences and getting justice to genuine victims.

(Para 15)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366 -- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (6 of 2007), Section 10 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164 -- Penetrative sexual assault – Marriage with minor girl – Acquittal -- In statement u/s 164 of the Cr. PC, the victim deposed that she was in love with the appellant, had consumed poison, and had even been hospitalized because she was adamant to live with the appellant -- No doubt, she resiled from her statement, yet, the medical evidence indicated that the victim had a ruptured hymen; there was no external injury at her private parts – Prosecution was not able to establish that there was any penetrative sexual assault as a result of coercion or compulsion on the part of the appellant – Held, M’s statement u/s 164 of the Cr. PC contained a truthful narration of the events -- Impugned judgment set aside the charge u/s 366 IPC against the appellant -- Charges u/s 6 of the POCSO Act as well as Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, cannot be sustained -- Conviction and sentence set aside.

(Para 20-22)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376AB, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Penetrative sexual assault -- Rape on woman under 12 years of age/Section 376AB IPC – Regular bail -- During the trial, victim aged about 14 years (PW1) and informant (PW2), mother of the victim, have been examined – Victim (PW1) and her mother (PW2) did not support the case of the prosecution and applicant has no criminal history – Held, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, applicant deserves bail at this stage -- Bail allowed.

(Para 4-7)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375, 376 -- Aggravated penetrative sexual assault -- Prosecutrix aged 17 years and 5-6 months – Consensual relationship – Rape with minor – Acquittal -- A provision which does not take into consideration our societal realities and proceed on an assumption, that every sexual indulgence with a minor, irrespective of whether she was capable of being an equal participant in the act, has definitely created a situation, resulting in acquittal of the accused in cases of consensual sexual relationship, where the gap in the age of accused and that of victim is small.

(Para 27)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363 – Kidnapping -- Prosecutrix aged 17 years and 5-6 months – Accused and the prosecutrix were indulged in a love affair and in cross-examination, she specifically admitting about the same -- Girl on her own, left her house and accompanied the accused, where she travelled in distinct States and made no attempt to flee away and rather addressed letters to the concerned police stations about she willingly accompanying the accused and referring to “Nikah”, being performed with the accused -- Ld. Special Judge has rightly derived a conclusion that there is no evidence, establishing that the accused had taken away or enticed her and, therefore, an offence under Section 363 of IPC is not made out.

(Para 28)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375, 376 -- Aggravated penetrative sexual assault -- Consensual relationship – Rape with minor – Acquittal – Prosecutrix continued to stay with the accused and physical relationship was established between them, considering that she was aged 17 years and 5-6 months, a conclusion was derived by Ld. Special Judge that the act of the accused amounted to an offence of rape as, she being minor, sexual relationship maintained with her, either with or without consent, would amount to rape – Evidence on record has clearly made out a case for consensual sex -- Held, ld. Special Judge has erred in convicting the appellant u/s 376 of IPC and u/s 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 28-30)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 363, 377, 506 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – POCSO matter – Regular bail -- FSL report has shown the offence having been committed by the petitioner -- However, it is not disputed that the complainant and the father of the victim have not supported the case of the prosecution and that the petitioner is in custody for the past about more than two years and two months -- No other case -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail pending trial.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Punishment – Amendment of 2019 – Effect of -- On the date of the commission of the offence, R.I. for ten years was the minimum sentence prescribed -- From 16th August 2019, the minimum sentence has been enhanced to twenty years -- However, the amended provision will not apply as the incident has taken place prior to 16th August 2019.

(Para 10)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Less than minimum sentence – Power of Court -- When a penal provision uses the phraseology “shall not be less than….”, the Courts cannot do offence to the Section and impose a lesser sentence - - Courts are powerless to do that unless there is a specific statutory provision enabling the Court to impose a lesser sentence -- No such provision in the POCSO Act -- No question of showing any leniency.

(Para 12)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8, 12 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO matter – Regular bail -- Mail child victim is 10 year old – Petitioner in custody since 30.04.2023 -- Pre-trial incarceration is not the rule -- No fruitful purpose shall be served by allowing the petitioner to be kept in custody till the conclusion of trial -- Apprehension expressed on behalf of the respondent regarding likelihood of influence being exerted on prosecution witnesses, can be duly taken care of by putting the petitioner to appropriate terms -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1-9)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 19, 21 -- Child rape victim – Marital status -- There is no distinct category within child victims of rape as those who are married and those who are not.

(Para 12)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 19, 21, 42A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 198(1), 198(3) – Child victim -- Mandatory reporting of an offence -- Held, Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act shall override the restrictions imposed under Section 198(1) read with Section 198(3) of Cr.P.C.

(Para 16)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 19, 21 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 472, 473 -- Child victim – Delay in reporting of offence – Extension of limitation -- In appropriate cases where minor victims are not able to file their complaints within time, the Trial Court has the power to extend the period of limitation, if it deems appropriate.

(Para 17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A, 376(2)(N) – Regular bail – Cancellation of bail – Earlier bail u/ss 363, 366-A IPC – Later Section 376(2)(N) IPC added -- Section 376(2)(N) of IPC was not in the picture at the time of consideration of bail – Held, simply because the offence u/s 376(2)(N) of IPC has been added is no ground to cancel the bail -- Petition dismissed -- State is at liberty to take the requisite action if so required in accordance with law.

(Para 1, 2, 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376D, 506 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – POCSO -- Gang rape -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Petitioner solemnized marriage with the victim and she is happily cohabiting with the petitioner, thus, denial of prayer of the petitioner not only would be against the interest of petitioner but also victim and her family members -- Further, there appears to be no chance of conviction, thus, the continuance of the proceedings would just waste valuable judicial time and it is well-known fact that courts are already overburdened – FIR u/s 376D and 506 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s).

(Para 1-5)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), 375 Exception 2, 376 – POCSO – Rape – Consensual sex with wife aged above 15 years -- Acquittal of accused -- Incident of August-September, 2012 -- Parents and prosecutrix have not supported the prosecution case -- Prosecutrix specifically denied that she was kidnapped forcibly -- Prosecutrix married to the appellant and have also begotten a child out of the said wedlock -- Sexual act by the appellant with the prosecutrix, who are husband and wife, with the latter being above 15 years of age would not amount to rape as per Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC -- Conviction is not sustainable -- Appeal allowed, appellant is directed to be set at liberty.

(Para 4, 8-13)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – POCSO – Regular bail -- Keeping in mind petitioner is in custody since 20.09.2022 and he is 63 years old man; police report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. stands filed and charges stand framed; Out of 15 prosecution witnesses till date no witness been examined, thus, there is abysmally low possibility of conclusion of trial in near future; accused in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India has right to defend himself and put forth his stand which cannot be possible while in custody; petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case; prosecution has not led any convincing/plausible documentary or oral evidence indicating possibility of petitioner being flee from justice or tempering the evidences or winning over/threatening the witnesses. Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357 -- Haryana Victims Compensation Scheme, 2013 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860)Section 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4 -- Compensation to rape victim under repealed scheme – Writ jurisdiction -- Victim cannot be denied benefit merely due to an act of oversight by the Court -- Act of Court should not prejudice her claim to just compensation -- Victim being a minor and 10 years of age, the Court is the supreme guardian of her best interests as parens patriae -- Hence, the deprivation is now being undone in exercise of the power of prerogative writ -- Sending of the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal would be an exercise in futility as the authorities under the scheme cannot award compensation under a repealed scheme – Petition allowed, respondent-District Legal Services Authority directed to award a total compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- as per the Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2013 -- Amount of Rs.4,00,000/- already disbursed be adjusted from the amount above.

(Para 14-16)

            Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (56 of 2000), Section 12 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Juvenile in conflict with law – POCSO Case – Regular bail -- Mere suggestion of vulnerability of the juvenile, in the opinion of a Probation Officer, to physical, psychological or immoral danger, as also opinion of the Clinical Psychologist regarding cognitive development of the juvenile, are alien to the requirements of Section 12 of the Act -- Being professional advice/opinion cannot afford reasonable ground for believing that the juvenile's release from custody is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to physical, psychological or immoral danger – Nothing on record, which can even prima facie afford a ground to so believe -- Not the case that the juvenile's release from custody will defeat the ends of justice and does not fall in any of the exceptions carved out under Section 12 of the Act for declining bail -- Petitioner/juvenile in conflict with law is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3, 7-9)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A, 376 – Constitution of India, Article 19(1), 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO -- Rape – Regular bail – Out of 14 prosecution witnesses till date only 02 material witnesses i.e. prosecutrix and complainant have been examined -- Petitioner has suffered incarceration of 02 years, 05 months and 08 days – Petitioner has prima facie case -- A person who seeks to be liberated must take judgment and serve sentence in the event of his conviction -- Detention or arrest not only deprives a person from his fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed by article 21 but also freedom guaranteed by article 19(1) of Constitution – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366, 342, 376 (2) (i) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 6, 17 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody for a period of 03 years, 04 months and 21 days and not involved in any other case -- Victim has not given any history with regard to penetrative sexual assault during the course of her medical examination -- Victim is not coming forth to depose in the trial Court despite substantial number of adjournments -- Statement of the mother of the victim during the course of trial, that the victim has eloped with some boy on 07.02.2021 – Held, petitioner cannot be incarcerated for a long period of time, particularly, only on the score that the victim is not putting appearance in the trial Court -- Conclusion of trial may take some more time -- Petition allowed and petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(n), 323 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 10, 12 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape – Regular bail -- Physical relation on pretext of marriage -- Petitioner and the prosecutrix were in relationship for a period of 11 years -- It will remain a debatable and moot point as to whether the petitioner was in consensual relationship with the prosecutrix or it was on the basis of false promise to solemnize marriage -- Allegations with regard to sexual assault upon the minor daughter of the prosecutrix have emerged at a subsequent stage to the registration of the FIR -- Petitioner is in custody for a period of 05 months and 16 days and is not involved in any other case – Out of 18 witnesses till date no witness has been examined -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take some time -- Sufficient mitigating circumstances are made out to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6-7)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 19(1), 21, 27 – Reporting of offence -- Prompt and proper reporting of is of utmost importance -- Its failure on coming to know about the commission of any offence thereunder would defeat the very purpose and object of the Act -- Medical examination of the victim as also the accused would give many important clues in a case that falls under the POCSO Act – Clothes of the parties would also offer very reliable evidence in cases of rape – If it was committed by an unknown person, it would also enable the investigating agency to commence investigation without wasting time and ultimately to secure the arrest and medical examination of the culprit – Non-reporting of sexual assault against a minor child despite knowledge is a serious crime and more often than not, it is an attempt to shield the offenders of the crime of sexual assault -- A conjoint reading of Sections 19(1) and 21 of POCSO Act, such persons are also liable to be proceeded with, in accordance with law.

(Para 15, 22)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 – Medical evidence in sexual offences -- In relation to sexual offences medical evidence has much corroborative value.

(Para 15)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- POCSO case – Quashing of FIR and charge-sheet – Inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- If FIR and the materials collected disclose a cognizable offence and the final report filed u/s 173(2), Cr.P.C. on completion of investigation based on it would reveal that the ingredients to constitute an offence under the POCSO Act and a prima facie case against the persons named therein as accused, the truthfulness, sufficiency or admissibility of the evidence are not matters falling within the purview of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and undoubtedly they are matters to be done by the Trial Court at the time of trial.

(Para 18)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 164 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 145, 157 – Evidential value of statement u/s 161,  164 Cr.P.C. – Statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are inadmissible in evidence and its use is limited for the purposes as provided under Sections 145 and 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -- As a matter of fact, statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. can also be used only for such purposes.

(Para 20)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 164-A, 173 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Rape case Guidelines -- Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police vs. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna, (2014) 8 SCC 913 exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution issued interim directions in the form of mandamus to all the Police Stations-in-Charge in the entire country to follow:

“10.1. Upon receipt of information relating to the commission of offence of rape, the investigating officer shall make immediate steps to take the victim to any Metropolitan/preferably Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC. A copy of the statement under Section 164 CrPC should be handed over to the investigating officer immediately with a specific direction that the contents of such statement under Section 164 CrPC should not be disclosed to any person till charge-sheet/report under Section 173 CrPC is filed.

10.2. The investigating officer shall as far as possible take the victim to the nearest Lady Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate.

10.3. The investigating officer shall record specifically the date and the time at which he learnt about the commission of the offence of rape and the date and time at which he took the victim to the Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate as aforesaid.

10.4. If there is any delay exceeding 24 hours in taking the victim to the Magistrate, the investigating officer should record the reasons for the same in the case diary and hand over a copy of the same to the Magistrate.

10.5. Medical examination of the victim : Section 164-A CrPC inserted by Act 25 of 2005 in CrPC imposes an obligation on the part of investigating officer to get the victim of the rape immediately medically examined. A copy of the report of such medical examination should be immediately handed over to the Magistrate who records the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC.”

Supreme Court gave suggestion to every High Court that the appropriate modifications/amendments be made to the Criminal Practice/Trial Rules incorporating provisions consistent with the directions issued in the decisions in Shivanna’s case (2014) 8 SCC 913.

(Para 1-7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused -- Power of Court -- Power u/s 319 Cr.P.c. is discretionary and extra ordinary, which is to be exercised very sparingly only when strong and cogent evidence has been led against a person, who is sought to be summoned -- Court must be satisfied from the evidence collected during the enquiry or in the trial that the person sought to be summoned as an additional accused has committed an offence for which he deserves to be tried alongwith already arraigned accused.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – POCSO matter -- Rape -- Summoning of additional accused – In the complaint there is no allegation whatsoever against MK (sister of main accused/ JS) – Only reference in the FIR is that MK is the sister of JS and she used to talk with the prosecutrix on phone -- In the statement recorded u/s 164 of the Code, the prosecutrix stated that MK used to say that she wants that the prosecutrix should become her Bhabi (sister-in-law), and that the prosecutrix revealed about the incident to MK but she assured her that there is nothing to worry as JS would get married to her -- However, in her deposition, the prosecutrix has stated that, it was MK, who had called her on phone and forced her to accompany them on a trip, but when she reached the hotel, she found that MK was not present there – It is evident that there is a consistent change in the version of the incident by the prosecutrix to enmesh the sister of JS in the criminal case -- Parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh’s case (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Manjeet Singh’s case 2021 SCC Online 632 are not fulfilled and the order passed by the Trial Court declining the application for summoning MK does not call for any interference -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 8-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 34, 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO matter – Rape – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix went missing from home on 10.01.2021 and was recovered on 25.01.2021 -- Petitioner is behind bars from 25.01.2021 -- Out of 17 prosecution witnesses, 10 examined including the complainant and the victim -- Nothing on record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents -- Allegations in the FIR by father that there were friendly relations between the petitioner and the victim which were not acceptable to them -- Trial of the case will take sufficient long time -- Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6, 7)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7, 8, 9, 11 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354A(1)(i),(ii) & (iv), 354 A-(2) and 354-A(3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 438 -- POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail –While granting bail High court observed “… Though on the one side, there is a possibility of such hugs and kisses being manifestations of affection by an uncle, one cannot ignore the possibility of such show of 'affections' being coloured by sexual overtones. However, those are all matters for investigation.” – Held, observations made are totally unwarranted and have been made overlooking the specific allegations contained in the FIR, duly supported with the Statement of the victim-girl child u/s 164 of the Code – High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves free-hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.

(Para 10, 11)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7, 8, 9, 11, 29 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354A(1)(i),(ii) & (iv), 354 A-(2) and 354-A(3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail –Victim-girl is traumatized to such a high degree that her academic pursuits have been adversely impacted alone, coupled with the legislative intent especially reflected through Section 29 of the POCSO Act, are sufficient to dissuade a Court from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in granting pre-arrest bail.

(Para 12)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7, 8, 9, 11, 29 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354A(1)(i),(ii) & (iv), 354 A-(2) and 354-A(3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail -- Charge-sheet filed -- It will be unfair to presume that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.

(Para 14)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Custodial interrogation -- In many anticipatory bail matters, one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted -- There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail -- Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail.

(Para 15)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 438 -- POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail – Prima facie case – Nature of offence -- Custodial interrogation -- There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail -- First and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused -- Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment -- Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail -- However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.

(Para 15

F. Binding precedent – Judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of High Court --  Decision of the Kerala High Court rendered in the Joy’s case (2019) 1 KLT 935 deals with Section 29 of the POCSO Act -- When the learned Judge decided the anticipatory bail application, the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Joy was binding to him -- He could not have ignored a binding decision -- It is a different thing to say that if he may disagree with the view taken and accordingly refer it to a larger Bench.

(Para 16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 377, 511 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8, 12 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – POCSO matter -- Attempt to do unnatural offence – Regular bail -- Undoubtedly, petitioner is found involved in unnatural and shameful activity, though, could not fully succeeded in his malicious aim -- Still considering the fact that both the material witnesses i.e. victim and the complainant have already been examined and petitioner, who is said to be of 54 years of age, is not involved in any other similar shameful act in his past – Petitioner is inside jail for the last more than 07 months -- Court deemed appropriate to release the petitioner on bail.

(Para 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – POCSO matter -- Rape – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Subsequent to the registration of the FIR and after attaining the age of majority, the petitioner has solemnized marriage with the victim/respondent no.3 -- FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed, however, qua the petitioner.

(Para 1-3, 13)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Recalling of witness -- In case the evidence sought to be brought on record is essential to the issue involved, the powers u/s 311 Cr.P.C. must be invoked.

(Para 1, 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 506 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Rape -- Recalling of witness – In cross-examination of the victim no question was put regarding the charge against the accused -- Though, change of counsel in a case cannot always be ground for recalling and re-examination of witness, more so, in cases of sexual offences, however, the facts and circumstances of each case have to be appreciated before deciding an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C.

(Para 12)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 506 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 33(5) – Rape -- Recalling of witness – Bar under 33(5) of POCSO Act -- Issue concerning determination of the age of the victim as well as cross-examination of the victim regarding the allegations leveled against the accused is essential, as only that can unfold the truth -- Fair trial demands that opportunity to defend the accused be afforded -- Section 33(5) cannot be read alone, as a balance of rights u/s 33(5) and Section 311 Cr.P.C. needs to be maintained -- Right to fair trial as well as the bar under Section 33(5) both need to be looked into while deciding such application, depending upon facts of each case – It is not a case of the prosecution that the witness has been repeatedly called for cross-examination -- Application moved on the first available opportunity to the accused/ applicant who, was in judicial custody -- Application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. allowed.

(Para 16-21)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 342, 376(D) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 8 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(4)(w)(i) – POCSO matter – Regular bail – Ad-interim compensation as a ground -- High Court not adverted to the parameters of Section 439 Cr.P.C. which are required to be observed while granting or declining regular bail to an accused, especially when he is involved in a heinous crime -- Offer of payment of ad interim compensation to the victim cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail -- Impugned order set aside, High Court requested to hear and dispose of the bail application on merits within a period of three months -- Respondent ordered to be taken into custody and bail bond cancelled.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7, 8 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 – POCSO case – Age of victim – Determination of – Stage of case -- Proof or determination of age of the victim in a POCSO case is foundational and for such an important issue, the same can be raised at any stage of the lifetime of the case, even before the appellate forum -- Impugned judgment and sentence set aside and quashed -- Matter remanded to the court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), to determine the age of the victim and to pass the final order upon appreciation of evidence under the changed circumstances.

(Para 15-21)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7, 8 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 – Age of the victim – Determination of -- Nothing on record to indicate the actual age of the victim either by medical or documentary evidence -- Special Court directed to take up the exercise of determination of the age of the victim in accordance with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and to allow the parties to produce relevant documents, examine and cross-examine the witnesses and to be heard on the issue and thereafter to decide on the issue.

(Para 16-19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 (2) (n) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- POCSO matter – Rape case -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Dispute amicably settled between the parties – In the event, the Court is satisfied that in order to secure the ends of justice, it should interfere under its inherent powers, it ought to do so -- Respondent no.2/ girl already attained the age of majority, has solemnized marriage with the petitioner and the couple is stated to be residing happily with each other and a male child has also been born from the wedlock -- Possibility of conviction also become remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case will cause injustice not only to the petitioner but also to respondent No.2, who is now legally wedded wife of the petitioner -- FIR quashed.

(Para 5-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 446A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 34, 120-B, 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 – Absence from trial – Non-bailable warrants – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner had been regularly appearing before the trial Court and it was only on one occasion he absented and even his bail bonds have not been cancelled or forfeited to the State -- Keeping in view that there is only a single date default, petitioner is directed to put in appearance before the trial Court within ten days from today and on his doing so he shall be released on bail on old bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(Para 2-4)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2)n -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO matter – Rape case-- Regular bail – Petitioner is behind bars since 16.01.2020 -- Alleged occurrence took place in July, 2019 whereas, the present FIR has been lodged on 16.01.2020 -- Though the victim has supported the case of the prosecution, however, out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, 11 witnesses including all the material witnesses already stand examined -- Thus, the chances of tampering with the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner definitely does not survive any more -- Petitioner has no criminal antecedents -- Trial will take sufficient long time -- Veracity of the allegations would be assessed after conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of the evidence -- Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354, 509 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 12 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – POCSO case -- Recall of minor witness and parents for cross-examination – Right of -- Victim is of tender age and she has been sought to be re-called along with her parents for the purpose of cross-examination -- It has to be borne in mind that a fair opportunity of defence has to be afforded to the petitioner/ accused particularly because the counsel was in some personal difficulty -- Recall of the witnesses appears to be essential for the just decision of the case – Victim and her parents can be compensated in terms of costs -- Re-call of witnesses allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to each witness.

(Para 4, 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 18 – POCSO matter – Regular bail -- Allegation that petitioner has tried to do bad act with victim by forcibly kissing her and with intention to commit rape, he has broken the string of her Salwar – Prosecutrix is stated to be 17 years and 02 months of age -- Prosecutrix when was taken to hospital, she made a statement that she does not want to be medico-legally examined as no rape was committed with her -- Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody for the last about 01 year and 11 months; he is not involved in any other case and also considering the fact that statement of the prosecutrix already stands recorded, the petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-AB – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- POCSO matter -- Bail to juvenile -- Rape with minor – Victim was just 01 year and 09 months old -- 11 prosecution witnesses remain to be examined -- Prima facie, there are very serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, for which the Court is not inclined to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner -- However, since the petitioner has been in custody since 09th August, 2019, the Juvenile Board/trial Court concerned is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably, on or before 30th November, 2021.

(Para 2-4)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12, 115 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 376AB -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – POCSO matter -- Rape with minor – Bail to juvenile -- Petitioner was declined bail on the ground that release of the petitioner on bail would defeat the ends of justice – Held, a juvenile can be denied the concession of bail, if any of the three contingencies specified under Section 12 (1) of the J.J. Act is available – J.J. Act is a beneficial legislation and gravity or seriousness of the offence would not be a ground to decline concession of bail to the juvenile – No purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner in custody -- Impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such, are liable to be set aside -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(Para 5-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Anticipatory bail by juvenile – Maintainability of -- Petition u/s 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the juvenile is not maintainable.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 365, 366-A, 376, 467, 468, 420, 471 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO case – Rape and kidnapping – Regular bail -- Detention for more than six months – As per Voter I. Card and statement given by her before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, her Date of Birth happens to be 07.08.2001 -- She further stated that she had married the petitioner at her own will on 13.10.2020 and wanted to live with him – Prosecutrix is now residing with her parents, it would be fair to assume that the petitioner even if now released on bail would not be in a position to exert any undue influence or administer threat upon her -- Trial is likely to take its own considerable time to complete due to ongoing covid-19 pandemic, the prayer of the petitioner for regular bail is allowed.

(Para 1-3)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 364A, 376, 216, 120B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 11, 106 -- Murder -- Rape -- Kidnapping -- Out of three eye-witnesses, two witnesses, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution -- Both these witnesses are close relations of the victim and there is nothing on record to indicate that they were either put under any pressure or that there was any element of suspicion -- Both these witnesses were categorical that the persons who kidnapped the victim were not before the Court in the capacity as the accused – Third witness-informant, the father of the victim, reporting made by this witness, based on which the crime was registered neither shows that he was an eye-witness to the occurrence nor does it disclose that the identity of the accused who had kidnapped the victim was in any way known at the stage when the occurrence took place -- Thus, all three witnesses who were claimed to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and on whose testimonies, reliance was placed by the prosecution, are of no help.

(Para 20, 21)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 364A, 376, 216, 120B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 11, 106 -- Murder -- Rape -- Kidnapping -- Circumstantial evidence – Though the post-mortem report discloses that the victim was sexually assaulted, the FSL Report on record does not establish any connection of the accused with the sexual assault on the deceased victim -- Dead body of the victim was found lying in an open field -- Record is again not clear as to when the present appellants were arrested and how and in what manner their disclosure statements led to the recovery of the dead body – There are of course circumstances like recovery of clothing apparel as well as tiffin box etc. belonging to the victim -- However, such recoveries by themselves, in the absence of any other material evidence on record pointing towards the guilt of the accused, cannot be termed sufficient to hold that the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt -- Not only those circumstances are not conclusive in nature but they also do not form a cogent and consistent chain so as to exclude every other hypothesis except the guilt of the appellants -- Held, prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt -- Conviction and sentence set aside.

(Para 24-27)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 363, 366-A, 506 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 3, 4 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – POCSO case – Bail to juvenile -- No reasonable explanation or finding given as to how the petitioner, if released on bail, would come into association with any known criminals -- Petitioner who is a juvenile, is in judicial custody since 14.10.2019 -- Both the Courts below have not referred to any social investigation report prepared by the respondent-State, as to the background of the petitioner or with whom he associates with -- To reject the appeal on a presumption that he would come into association with any criminal is wholly unjustified – Impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such, are liable to be set aside -- Revision petition allowed, petitioner directed to be released on bail.

(Para 4-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 6, 8 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO case – Hostile witnesses -- Regular bail -- Prosecutrix and her mother have not supported the prosecution version while appearing in the witness box and have been declared hostile -- Petitioner has been in custody since 13.1.2020 -- Trial will take time to conclude because of Covid-19 pandemic -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars – Petition allowed.

(Para 1, 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 216 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354, 376-D -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- POCSO matter -- Rape – Alteration of charge -- In FIR and statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. made by the victim, she has not specifically alleged rape and has only stated that the accused tried to outrage her modesty – Victim is 17 year old, when was medically examined, it was disclosed to the Doctor concerned that the victim had been raped -- Report of FSL also discloses that human semen was detected from the under-garments and from the vaginal swabs – No infirmity, whereby the trial Court has proceeded to alter the charges so as to frame charges for offences u/s 376D IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376(3) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 53-A, 173 -- POCSO matter -- Blood sample for DNA test -- Investigaiton report already filed – Permissibility of -- Petitioner is facing a charge of committing repeated rape on the prosecutrix, who was less than 16 years of age and also for committing penetrative sexual assault upon her – Trial Court allowed the application for DNA test – Revision challenging the order -- Held, mere fact that application has been filed after submission of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. is no ground to entertain revision petition as charges are yet to be framed.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366, 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO case – Rape – Regular bail – Compromise -- Since the investigation is complete and the challan has already been presented and a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 344, 366, 34 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 235, 360 – Kidnapping case -- Appellant/ accused no. 4 & 5 are not a main accused – Sentence reduce to 3 months/ already undergone -- Many factors which may not be relevant to determine the guilt, must be seen with a human approach, at the stage of sentencing -- Main accusation was against accused no.1, who is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 344, 366, IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years -- Even in the complaint, it was mentioned that accused no.1 was in love with the victim girl PW-2 -- It is also the case of the appellants that PW-1 was not a direct witness to the incident and PW-2 has been tutored by PW-1 -- Alleged incident is of the year 2014 and appellants (accused no. 4 & 5) have already served sentence of about three months and paid fine amount -- Pleaded that there is no one to take care of their minor son and old age parents -- Sentence modified for the period already undergone -- Appellants ordered to be released forthwith.

(Para 11)