POCSO: Supreme Court Overturns High Court Verdict, Emphasizes Judicial Objectivity in Sexual Assault Case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday emphasized that a judge's role is to decide cases, not to give sermons, as it overturned a Calcutta High Court judgment that had acquitted a man in a sexual assault case involving a minor girl.

The High Court had made "objectionable" comments suggesting that adolescent girls should "control sexual urges."

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan provided guidelines for judges on how to write judgments, noting that a judgment is neither a thesis nor a literary work. The court underscored that a judgment should not include a judge's personal opinions or general advice, stating that the judge’s duty is to resolve the case without offering unsolicited moral guidance.

The bench acknowledged that while courts can comment on the conduct of the parties, such observations must be directly relevant to the case's outcome. Senior advocate Madhavi Divan, acting as amicus curiae, highlighted numerous problematic sections of the High Court’s October 18, 2023, judgment, which asserted that it was a female adolescent's duty to protect her bodily integrity and control sexual urges, framing societal judgment as a consequence of failing to do so.

The Supreme Court bench criticized the High Court for incorporating its personal views, even if it believed there was some basis for them. The bench also disapproved of the High Court's unwarranted discussion on rights and physiological processes, noting that these were irrelevant and unnecessary in the context of the case.

Judgement of the court cannot contain the judge's personal opinions on various subjects ,similarly advisory Jurisdiction cannot be excercised by court by incorporating advice to the parties or advice in general the , judge has decide a case and not preach

Said Justices Abhay & Ujjal (Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court expressed shock at several statements in the High Court's judgment, labeling them as perverse. The bench also took issue with the High Court's characterization of the offense, which is punishable under the POSCO Act, as a “romantic relationship.”

The bench pointed out that the High Court’s suggestion that the criminalization of a romantic relationship between two adolescents should be left to judicial discretion was inappropriate. The courts are bound to enforce the law and cannot undermine it through subjective interpretations.

The Supreme Court further noted that, regardless of any settlement between the accused and the victim, the High Court did not have the authority to dismiss the prosecution. The court highlighted that at the time of the incident, the victim was 14 years old, and the accused was around 25. Although there were claims of a marriage between the accused and the victim, who later gave birth to a child, the court found no evidence to support this.

The bench confirmed that the offenses under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Subsections (2)(n) and (3) of Section 376 of the IPC were clearly established.

The court remarked that the case should have been referred to the Juvenile Justice Board, which has provisions to support the child until the age of 21.

The bench reiterated the state's responsibility to protect victims of such heinous crimes, emphasizing that the right to live a dignified life is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. As it reinstated the conviction of the accused, the court directed states to implement specific provisions from the POCSO and Juvenile Justice Acts.

Additionally, the court established a committee of experts to guide the child in making informed choices, setting the matter for sentencing consideration on October 21, 2024, following the committee's report based on interactions with the victim.

Thanks for visiting!!

Refrence: https://www.google.com/amp/s/indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-sexual-urges-calcutta-hc-order-9523224/lite/