Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025:Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012

Application in Consensual Adolescent Relationships - The Supreme Court emphasized a nuanced application of the POCSO Act in cases involving consensual romantic relationships between adolescents, prioritizing the best interests of the victim and her dependents. (Paras 15, 31) In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2025 INSC 778

Life Imprisonment - While conviction under both IPC and POCSO Act may be justified, the High Court erred in enhancing the life imprisonment awarded by the trial court to "imprisonment for the remainder of natural life" in an appeal against conviction. Courts have discretion to award life imprisonment under Section 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC, but it is not mandatory that it extend to the remainder of the convict's natural life. In cases where life imprisonment is deemed appropriate but a fixed term is considered insufficient, courts may impose a modified sentence specifying a fixed period beyond 14 years. In this case the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court was reinstated, but without the addition that it will enure till the natural life of the appellant, along with a fine of 5,00,000/- to be paid to the victim. (Para 28 & 31) Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 299 : 2025 INSC 335 : AIR 2025 SC 1972

Real-Time Data Collection - The Court supported proposals for a structured mechanism to track POCSO cases, sex education implementation, counseling services, and child marriage monitoring to enhance institutional accountability and transparency. A notice was issued to the Union of India to form a committee to address these suggestions. States and Union Territories were directed to ensure compliance with POCSO and Juvenile Justice Act provisions, with compliance reports to be submitted to the Ministry of Women and Child Development. (Paras 15, 31) In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2025 INSC 778

Section 6 - Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 376(3), 376(2)(n) - Victim, now married to the accused and living with him and their child, did not perceive the incident as a crime. The victim's trauma resulted more from the legal process, societal judgment, and family abandonment than the incident itself. A committee report confirmed that the legal and social consequences caused greater harm than the act. The Court criticized deficiencies in the legal system and societal attitudes, acknowledging the victim's emotional attachment to the accused and her desire to protect her family. Previously, the Court had set aside controversial High Court remarks on adolescent sexuality, restored the conviction, and issued guidelines on judgment writing and compliance with the POCSO Act and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court directed the government to provide educational and financial support to the victim and her child, with assistance from the State Legal Services Authority. Invoking Article 142, the Court refrained from sentencing the accused due to the unique circumstances, as the victim opposed punishment to preserve her family. (Paras 23, 24) In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2025 INSC 778

Section 7 - Sexual Harassment of Students - Quashing of FIR - High Court's Insensitive Approach - Restoration of Criminal Proceedings - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order quashing an FIR against a computer teacher accused of sexually harassing students, predominantly female, in a government-aided school. The Court criticized the High Court for conducting a "mini-trial" and erroneously concluding that the accused's actions lacked sexual intent under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. The allegations, including inappropriate physical contact, invasive questions, and sending vulgar images, prima facie constituted offenses under the POCSO Act, necessitating a trial. The Court noted the High Court's insensitive approach, particularly as many victims belonged to minority communities, and directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously, treating victims as protected witnesses. The accused was ordered to remain suspended during the trial and prohibited from contacting victims or witnesses. The High Court's interpretation that Section 7 requires physical contact with sexual intent was incorrect, as the teacher's actions, given their position of authority, provided sufficient grounds to infer sexual intent. The Court expressed concern over the accused's influence, including a purported settlement with one victim and the police's initial failure to record all victims' statements. The school was directed to maintain the accused's suspension and permitted to conduct an independent domestic inquiry. (Paras 2, 3, 4) X v. Rajesh Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 498 : 2025 INSC 579

Section 8 - Penal Code, Section 363, 376(2), 302 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3 - Rape and Murder of a Three-Year-Old Girl - The prosecution's case, relying on an alleged extra-judicial confession and last seen evidence, was found deficient. The extra-judicial confession, based on the accused's statement of being “tensed up,” lacked corroboration and was omitted from the witness's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, rendering it unreliable. Witness testimonies on last seen circumstances were inconsistent, delayed, and tainted by ulterior motives and trial-stage improvements. Gross negligence by Investigating Officers, including delayed recording of witness statements despite early identification in the spot panchnama and withholding of critical FSL reports comparing samples from other suspects, warranted an adverse inference. The prosecution's evidence, based on conjectures, failed to meet the burden of proof. Emphasizing the weak nature of extra-judicial confessions and the need for robust investigations in heinous crimes, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitting the accused after nearly 12 years of incarceration, including 6 years under a death sentence. (Paras 59, 60, 75 & 76) Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 596 : AIR 2025 SC 3186 : 2025 Cri.L.J. 3027 : 2025 INSC 702

Section 42 - Sentencing - Overlapping Offences - Where acts constitute offences under both the POCSO Act and the IPC, the law providing for the greater degree of punishment applies. (Para 19 & 21) Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 299 : 2025 INSC 335 : AIR 2025 SC 1972

Section 42A - No plea for a lesser punishment under the POCSO Act can be entertained if the IPC prescribes a higher punishment for certain offences by arguing that Section 42A, as a special law, overrides the IPC, which is considered a general law. (Para 22) Sentencing – Enhancement of - High Court erred in enhancing sentence in absence of appeal for enhancement by state The High Court had clarified that the life imprisonment awarded by the trial court would mean imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant's natural life. While the trial court had the discretion to award life imprisonment, the High Court could not enhance the sentence in an appeal filed by the accused, especially without an appeal for enhancement by the State. (Para 27) Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 299 : 2025 INSC 335 : AIR 2025 SC 1972

Section 42A - Overriding effect - Section 42A of the POCSO Act, which gives overriding effect to the POCSO Act in cases of inconsistency with other laws, pertains to procedural aspects and does not override the substantive provision of Section 42 regarding punishment. (Para 22) Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 299 : 2025 INSC 335 : AIR 2025 SC 1972

Sex Education Reforms - The Court endorsed amici curiae suggestions for comprehensive sexuality education to address adolescent health, misinformation, and stigma, referencing UNESCO's 2021 Global Status Report on the need for systematic policy reforms and inclusive curricula. The Union Ministry of Women and Child Development was directed to constitute an expert committee to evaluate these suggestions, with a report due by 25 July 2025. (Paras 15, 31) In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2025 INSC 778

The Supreme Court directed the Union and State Governments to prioritize establishing Special POCSO Courts and ensure compliance with statutory timelines for investigation and trial. The Court emphasized sensitizing officials involved in POCSO cases and mandated timely filing of chargesheets and completion of trials as per the Act. While acknowledging compliance by several States with Central Government funding, the Court noted deficiencies in Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Odisha, and Maharashtra, where high case pendency necessitates additional POCSO Courts. Previous orders from July 2019 mandated exclusive POCSO Courts in districts with over 100 pending cases, appointment of Special Public Prosecutors, and adherence to investigation and trial timelines. The Court also proposed exploring a National Scheme for victim compensation under the POCSO Act. (Para 6) In Re Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 581 : 2025 INSC 695