Search Results

The Court warned that focusing only on fair‑trial claims of the accused can leave survivors of sexual assault bewildered and voiceless.

The Court directed that a compensation of ₹3 lakh be paid to a victim immediately.

The Court said families often invoke POCSO against consensual adolescent couples and suggested the Centre to consider incorporating a 'Romeo-Juliet clause' to curb misuse of the law.

The case concerned a man who was accused of flashing his private parts and making a three-year-old child touch them.

"School is a pious institute. The children trust their teachers and consider them as guiding light for the life," the Court said.

"A child may not know the consequences of sexual relation," the Court pointed out.

Justice Nivedita P Mehta made the observation while upholding the conviction of a man under the POCSO Act.

Yediyurappa has challenged Karnataka High Court's refusal to quash the case.

In 2021, Praveen Shankar Kapoor was booked under Section 23 of POCSO for sharing the FIR copy on social media.

The Court stated that subsequent deepening of relationship between the couple cannot retrospectively legalise an offence under the POCSO Act.

Judge S Sujatha of Additional City Civil and Sessions issued summons to BS Yeddyurappa, YM Aruna, M Rudresh and G Mariswamy in relation to the POCSO proceedings.

The Court, however, said that Yediyurappa’s personal appearance should not be insisted upon during the course of the trial, unless necessary.

The Court observed that upholding the conviction would disrupt the family’s peace and cause irreparable harm to the wife and child.

The alleged victim (accused man's wife) pleaded for the man's release and told the Court that she has been reduced to a hapless state due to the conviction and sentencing of her husband.

The High Court had criticised the trial judge for ignoring an ossification report and ordered an inquiry into all cases decided by the judge in the past five years.

It is most unfortunate that the social media platforms are a remit for the immature, the unreasonable and oral incontinence and is turning into a nasty circus, the Court remarked this week.