Search Results

The Court also expunged the Delhi High Court's remarks that the sexual abuse allegations against the father were motivated.

The Court said that the guidelines were necessary considering the alarming rise in false POCSO accusations during custody disputes.

The Court said that continuing the prosecution despite the absence of sexual intent could cause extreme and irreversible prejudice to the teacher.

The Court explained that under Section 3(d) of the POCSO Act, applying the mouth to the private parts of a child is sufficient to constitute an offence.

Whether the child is the wife of the accused or not is of little consequence, the Court said.

The Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to form a committee to examine systemic gaps in the implementation of the POCSO Act.

The false implication of innocent persons in POCSO Act offences is not uncommon in such scenarios, and courts must carefully examine such cases, the High Court said.

Justice Kauser Edappagath held that any settlement entered into by a parent of a minor victim with the intention of ending criminal prosection cannot be given legal sanction.

The trial court had convicted the accused, one Swamideen, under the POCSO Act. The High Court reversed the same.

The Court directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within three days.

The Court also made important observations on whether a statement of a child victim recorded by a magistrate during a POCSO investigation needs to be signed for authentication.

"16-18 years, they (teenagers) develop a relationship and go away. Parents to protect their honour fasten criminal liability. We have to acquit," the Court remarked.

The Court barred the accused from making any public statement regarding the case.

The Court refused to quash an FIR against 19 persons accused of obstructing police and Child Line officials who had gone to stop the marriage of a 16-year-old girl.

The victim was not heard and bail was granted before registration of the complaint, the High Court noted.

The order was passed in a writ petition filed by a sexual assault survivor seeking directions to ensure speedy trials in rape, sexual offence and POCSO cases across Tamil Nadu.