
|
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 |
|
|
Case laws |
|
|
|
|
|
1. Independent Thought v Union of India (2017) |
Supreme Court - Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC read down; sexual intercourse with wife aged 15–18 amounts to rape; POCSO overrides marital exception. |
|
2. Eera v State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) |
Supreme Court - “Child” under POCSO must be victim of sexual offence; not every IPC offence against minor attracts POCSO. |
|
3. Satish Ragde v State of Maharashtra (2021) |
Supreme Court - “Skin-to-skin” contact not required; any sexual intent touching amounts to sexual assault under POCSO. |
|
4. Alakh Alok Srivastava v Union of India (2018) |
Supreme Court - Directed speedy trial and victim compensation in child rape cases; strict enforcement of POCSO. |
|
5. State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh (1996) |
Supreme Court - In-camera trials necessary in sexual offences; applied in POCSO proceedings. |
|
6. Shafin Jahan v Asokan K.M. (2018) |
Supreme Court - Recognized autonomy of individuals; cited in POCSO cases involving consensual adolescent relationships. |
|
7. X v State of Maharashtra (2019) |
Supreme Court - Pregnancy of minor rape victim can be terminated beyond 20 weeks; victim welfare prioritized. |
|
8. Nipun Saxena v Union of India (2018) |
Supreme Court - Identity of rape/POCSO victims must not be disclosed; guidelines issued. |
|
9. State of H.P. v Sanjay Kumar (2017) |
Supreme Court - Minor inconsistencies in child testimony immaterial; conviction can be based on sole testimony. |
|
10. Phul Singh v State of Haryana (1980) |
Supreme Court - Leniency in sexual offences not justified; applied in sentencing under POCSO. |
|
11. Raja v State of Karnataka (2016) |
Supreme Court - Consent of minor irrelevant; strict liability under POCSO. |
|
12. State of M.P. v Madanlal (2015) |
Supreme Court - Courts must show zero tolerance in child sexual offences; deterrent punishment required. |
|
13. Om Prakash v State of U.P. (2006) |
Supreme Court - Delay in FIR not fatal in sexual offences; applicable in POCSO cases. |
|
14. State of Karnataka v Krishnappa (2000) |
Supreme Court - Rape is violation of basic human rights; stringent punishment justified. |
|
15. Ganesan v State (2020) |
Supreme Court Medical evidence not always necessary; conviction can be based on credible testimony. |
|
16. State of Rajasthan v Om Prakash (2002) |
Supreme Court - Victim testimony sufficient if trustworthy; corroboration not mandatory. |
|
17. Prajwal v State of Jharkhand (2020) |
Supreme Court - Pornographic exploitation of minors falls within aggravated offences under POCSO. |
|
18. Tukaram v State of Maharashtra (Mathura Case, 1979) |
Supreme Court - Led to reforms; consent interpretation later overridden in POCSO context. |
|
19. State of Tamil Nadu v Rajendran (2019) |
Madras High Court - Love affairs with minors still attract POCSO; consent immaterial. |
|
20. S v State (2021) |
Kerala High Court - Consensual adolescent relationships criticized under rigid POCSO application; called for legislative rethink. |
|
21. Jarnail Singh v State of Haryana (2013) |
Supreme Court - Age determination guidelines; applicable in POCSO cases. |
|
22. Bachpan Bachao Andolan v Union of India (2011) |
Supreme Court - Child protection measures strengthened; influenced POCSO enforcement. |
|
23. State v Pankaj Choudhary (2019) |
Delhi High Court - Strict compliance with POCSO procedures mandatory. |
|
24. Vijay v State of Maharashtra (2019) |
Supreme Court - Age determination crucial; benefit of doubt to accused if age not proved. |
|
25. Anversinh v State of Gujarat (2021) |
Supreme Court - Minor contradictions not fatal; child testimony reliable. |
|
26. State of Maharashtra v Chandraprakash (1990) |
Supreme Court - Victim testimony stands at higher pedestal. |
|
27. Radhu v State of M.P. (2007) |
Supreme Court - No rule of law requiring corroboration of prosecutrix testimony. |
|
28. State of U.P. v Chhotey Lal (2011) |
Supreme Court - Courts must be sensitive in sexual offence trials. |
|
29. Rohit v State of Haryana (2019) |
Punjab & Haryana High Court - Digital evidence admissible in POCSO cases. |
|
30. State of H.P. v Raghubir Singh (1993) |
Supreme Court - Delay in reporting justified due to trauma. |
|
31. Kali Ram v State of H.P. (1973) |
Supreme Court - Benefit of doubt doctrine applies in POCSO if prosecution fails. |
|
32. State of Rajasthan v Babu Meena (2013) |
Rajasthan High Court - Child witness credible if consistent. |
|
33. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v State of Maharashtra (2010) |
Supreme Court - Anticipatory bail principles; applied cautiously in POCSO. |
|
34. Mahadeo v State of Maharashtra (2013) |
Supreme Court - School records valid proof of age. |
|
35. State of Bihar v Deokaran Nenshi (1972) |
Supreme Court - Continuing offence doctrine; relevant in repeated abuse cases. |
|
36. Shyam Narain v State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) |
Supreme Court - Stern punishment required in child rape cases. |
|
37. State of M.P. v Dayal Sahu (2005) |
Supreme Court - Evidence of child must be carefully evaluated but not rejected. |
|
38. Rakesh v State of M.P. (2011) |
Supreme Court - Sole testimony sufficient for conviction. |
|
39. State of Maharashtra v Bandu (2018) |
Bombay High Court - Failure to follow POCSO procedure may vitiate trial. |
|
40. State v Mohd. Afzal (2020) |
Delhi High Court - Online grooming covered under POCSO provisions. |
|
41. Arjun v State of Chhattisgarh (2017) |
Chhattisgarh High Court - Penetrative assault broadly interpreted. |
|
42. State v Santosh Kumar (2018) |
Delhi Court - Mandatory reporting under Section 19 POCSO enforced strictly. |